Slaying enemies in their sleep evil?


Advice

251 to 300 of 825 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is 5th Edition they are playing. So should this not be in 3rd party Advice?

Other then that I looked up Divine Sense (Which is the Paladin's ability in 5e)
I won't quote it here because well rules I think.
But it says you sense strong evil as an oder, and the ringing of holy light in your ears. But that is fluff.
It says you can detect until the end of your next turn any celestial, fiend, and undead within 60 feet. This also allows you to detect any object or place under the effects of spells like Hallow.

So... how did any of the cultist ping as evil?
As far as the mechanic of that ability goes, you cannot detect the evil of the normal humanoid. So either the GM played it like the PF version of Detect Evil, or you lot got very confused on your intel. Because even if you used Divine Sense in the middle of a cult of evil baby eaters none of them would ping as evil because that is not what the ability looks for.

So lets take EVIL out of the description of the Acolytes.
Would it be evil if the Acolytes where actually (Secretly) another order of Good Aligned NPCs?

So the PCs sneak into another Orders base with orders to kill their leader. During their time there they are acting as new recruits and are being watched in case they are spys. During this time they start trouble and kill not just a higher member of the order but also kill sleeping acolytes of this Order (In this example a NOT Evil order). Then proceeds to butcher the bodies and make it appear as if a beast attacked them.

Is it evil if your Good PCs go in and slaughter Good aligned NPCs?

Because given what I just put above.. no one could have PINGED as Evil. So either the OP got confused and the party just assumed they where evil, or they just assumed they where evil because their 'LG' order told them to go kill them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:
Shadowlord wrote:
Davor wrote:
And all of this, I believe, is built on what I think is a fundamental falsehood: The existence of Neutral actions.

If an action is not inherently Good or inherently Evil then it is Neutral, unless there are some other qualifiers that kick it into Good or Evil.

I don't understand how you can say Neutral acts don't exist, everything is either Good or Evil, and also say this:

Davor wrote:
I would argue that all of the things listed are typically not evil, but neutral. There's a reason it's expected that most people are neutral.

Because you specifically mentioned people, or groups of people, being evil, not their actions, which were evil.

As to drinking the water, is drinking water, specifically THIS water, healthy for you? Are you treating your body well by drinking it? If so, then it is Good. It supports your ability to function well, and shows respect for your body.

Wait do Anti-Paladins fall for drinking water? They do if Good act don't they?


Starbuck_II wrote:
Davor wrote:
Shadowlord wrote:
Davor wrote:
And all of this, I believe, is built on what I think is a fundamental falsehood: The existence of Neutral actions.

If an action is not inherently Good or inherently Evil then it is Neutral, unless there are some other qualifiers that kick it into Good or Evil.

I don't understand how you can say Neutral acts don't exist, everything is either Good or Evil, and also say this:

Davor wrote:
I would argue that all of the things listed are typically not evil, but neutral. There's a reason it's expected that most people are neutral.

Because you specifically mentioned people, or groups of people, being evil, not their actions, which were evil.

As to drinking the water, is drinking water, specifically THIS water, healthy for you? Are you treating your body well by drinking it? If so, then it is Good. It supports your ability to function well, and shows respect for your body.

Wait do Anti-Paladins fall for drinking water? They do if Good act don't they?

They fall for sure if it's holly water.


The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:

This is 5th Edition they are playing. So should this not be in 3rd party Advice?

Other then that I looked up Divine Sense (Which is the Paladin's ability in 5e)
I won't quote it here because well rules I think.
But it says you sense strong evil as an oder, and the ringing of holy light in your ears. But that is fluff.
It says you can detect until the end of your next turn any celestial, fiend, and undead within 60 feet. This also allows you to detect any object or place under the effects of spells like Hallow.

So... how did any of the cultist ping as evil?
As far as the mechanic of that ability goes, you cannot detect the evil of the normal humanoid. So either the GM played it like the PF version of Detect Evil, or you lot got very confused on your intel. Because even if you used Divine Sense in the middle of a cult of evil baby eaters none of them would ping as evil because that is not what the ability looks for.

So lets take EVIL out of the description of the Acolytes.
Would it be evil if the Acolytes where actually (Secretly) another order of Good Aligned NPCs?

So the PCs sneak into another Orders base with orders to kill their leader. During their time there they are acting as new recruits and are being watched in case they are spys. During this time they start trouble and kill not just a higher member of the order but also kill sleeping acolytes of this Order (In this example a NOT Evil order). Then proceeds to butcher the bodies and make it appear as if a beast attacked them.

Is it evil if your Good PCs go in and slaughter Good aligned NPCs?

Because given what I just put above.. no one could have PINGED as Evil. So either the OP got confused and the party just assumed they where evil, or they just assumed they where evil because their 'LG' order told them to go kill them.

Given what you posted, Evil. All PCs should shift Alignment. Even if the NPCs were Neutral I would call it Evil. It's only because the acolytes were Evil that destroying them wasn't an Evil act, IMO.


Davor wrote:
Shadowlord wrote:
Davor wrote:
And all of this, I believe, is built on what I think is a fundamental falsehood: The existence of Neutral actions.

If an action is not inherently Good or inherently Evil then it is Neutral, unless there are some other qualifiers that kick it into Good or Evil.

I don't understand how you can say Neutral acts don't exist, everything is either Good or Evil, and also say this:

Davor wrote:
I would argue that all of the things listed are typically not evil, but neutral. There's a reason it's expected that most people are neutral.
Because you specifically mentioned people, or groups of people, being evil, not their actions, which were evil.

Like I said, I really believe those groups I mentioned were LN, I was just trying to make a point. So we agree they are N, we just disagree why.

I believe they are Neutral because they predominantly act with Neutrality.

You believe they are Neutral because they do enough Good to zero out their Evil? Is that right.

So do you believe that all killing is inherently Evil?


A group of good-aligned adventurers killing a disguised group of adventurers before it can be learned they weren't actually enemies isn't evil; it's just a tragedy.

Are you aware of the term "friendly fire?"


Zhangar wrote:

A group of good-aligned adventurers killing a disguised group of adventurers before it can be learned they weren't actually enemies isn't evil; it's just a tragedy.

Are you aware of the term "friendly fire?"

The OP has said they did this because 1. They where ordered to by the new group they joined. and 2. They were promised control over the sky and such.

Is that not evil?


They were mercenaries that were promised payment.

That's not evil in of itself.


The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

A group of good-aligned adventurers killing a disguised group of adventurers before it can be learned they weren't actually enemies isn't evil; it's just a tragedy.

Are you aware of the term "friendly fire?"

The OP has said they did this because 1. They where ordered to by the new group they joined. and 2. They were promised control over the sky and such.

Is that not evil?

If it were an angel offering you divine rewards for assisting and you do, is it evil? If not, why does changing the requester change the nature of good vs evil?


My point was their intent. They were not killing for the greater good, they where killing for power and rewards. Killing people while they sleep so you can gain something is pretty evil. Whats the difference between that and the thief who sneaks into a home and slits the throats of the people inside only to rob the house after?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as i can tell there is still no information concerning either of the rival orders from the first post.

All we have is one rival order giving an assassination mission to the PCs group to kill the leader of the other order.

The only reason that we know the other order is evil is because of the Paladin in the group. There is no other information concerning this order other than they detect as evil and have dark dwarves living inside.

Without further information given what we have is as follows:

1. PCs given mission to assassinate the leader of a rival order.

2. The PCs infiltrate this order pretending to be initiates and join their ranks. The paladin detects evil on most/all acolytes.

3. The PCs begin to search the grounds during the night and alert the orders guards.

4. A fight breaks out and the intruders(the PCs) kill one of the superiors and then kill a few acolytes in their sleep.

5. The PCs then mutilate the bodies trying to make it seem like an animal attack.

The PCs from the information given are the intruders, the sole aggressors, and are killing them for a promise of power, from a rival order, with a justification of they are "evil".

There is no way to tell from this information if this "evil" order actually did anything wrong to warrant their death.

Not everyone who is evil deserves death.

The PCs actions against this order seem evil based upon the information provided.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:

They were mercenaries that were promised payment.

That's not evil in of itself.

Accepting payment to kill someone? I believe that's why assassins are evil.

;P

The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:
My point was their intent. They were not killing for the greater good, they where killing for power and rewards. Killing people while they sleep so you can gain something is pretty evil. Whats the difference between that and the thief who sneaks into a home and slits the throats of the people inside only to rob the house after?

It can't be both? We have real life American mercenaries who go after terrorists BECAUSE they are paid quite well to do it, but they also only target terrorists BECAUSE they are not evil.

Had the sky folk asked us to slay an orphanage in return for sky powers, we'd likely have NOT done it, we'd likely be be murdering the sky folk and stealing their sky powers from them instead. (Sky powers are pretty tempting after all.)

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

They were mercenaries that were promised payment.

That's not evil in of itself.

Accepting payment to kill someone? I believe that's why assassins are evil.

;P

As far as I know - all soldiers are paid - in wartime it's being paid to go kill people.

Is assassination usually evil? Yes.

Always evil? No.

Like - what if doing it will make Jodie Foster love me!?


Brain in a Jar wrote:

As far as i can tell there is still no information concerning either of the rival orders from the first post.

All we have is one rival order giving an assassination mission to the PCs group to kill the leader of the other order.

The only reason that we know the other order is evil is because of the Paladin in the group. There is no other information concerning this order other than they detect as evil and have dark dwarves living inside.

Without further information given what we have is as follows:

1. PCs given mission to assassinate the leader of a rival order.

2. The PCs infiltrate this order pretending to be initiates and join their ranks. The paladin detects evil on most/all acolytes.

3. The PCs begin to search the grounds during the night and alert the orders guards.

4. A fight breaks out and the intruders(the PCs) kill one of the superiors and then kill a few acolytes in their sleep.

5. The PCs then mutilate the bodies trying to make it seem like an animal attack.

The PCs from the information given are the intruders, the sole aggressors, and are killing them for a promise of power, from a rival order, with a justification of they are "evil".

There is no way to tell from this information if this "evil" order actually did anything wrong to warrant their death.

Not everyone who is evil deserves death.

The PCs actions against this order seem evil based upon the information provided.

Except as I said in my one post. The 5e ability does not detect evil, it detects the presence of celestial, fiend, and undead and the like within 60 feet. Unless each of these acolytes had the half-fiend template or were undead they would not PING as evil or anything.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Like - what if doing it will make Jodie Foster love me!?

Every man has his price. No shame, brother.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:
My point was their intent. They were not killing for the greater good, they where killing for power and rewards. Killing people while they sleep so you can gain something is pretty evil. Whats the difference between that and the thief who sneaks into a home and slits the throats of the people inside only to rob the house after?

Thing is, they didn't kill them in their sleep to gain something, they killed them to both protect themselves and remove enemies from play.

You seem to be falsely equating the scenario they find themselves in and one where the party decided to go kill a group a villagers for profit. Killing evil and killing innocents are opposites.


The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:

As far as i can tell there is still no information concerning either of the rival orders from the first post.

All we have is one rival order giving an assassination mission to the PCs group to kill the leader of the other order.

The only reason that we know the other order is evil is because of the Paladin in the group. There is no other information concerning this order other than they detect as evil and have dark dwarves living inside.

Without further information given what we have is as follows:

1. PCs given mission to assassinate the leader of a rival order.

2. The PCs infiltrate this order pretending to be initiates and join their ranks. The paladin detects evil on most/all acolytes.

3. The PCs begin to search the grounds during the night and alert the orders guards.

4. A fight breaks out and the intruders(the PCs) kill one of the superiors and then kill a few acolytes in their sleep.

5. The PCs then mutilate the bodies trying to make it seem like an animal attack.

The PCs from the information given are the intruders, the sole aggressors, and are killing them for a promise of power, from a rival order, with a justification of they are "evil".

There is no way to tell from this information if this "evil" order actually did anything wrong to warrant their death.

Not everyone who is evil deserves death.

The PCs actions against this order seem evil based upon the information provided.

Except as I said in my one post. The 5e ability does not detect evil, it detects the presence of celestial, fiend, and undead and the like within 60 feet. Unless each of these acolytes had the half-fiend template or were undead they would not PING as evil or anything.

I can only use that which has been provided to me.

Ravingdork said they detected as evil by their paladin, I'm going with that.

Otherwise i have zero clue about 5E. IF it only works on that stuff then I'm clearly wrong. But i've been assuming Pathfinder since you know Pathfinder forum.


CN_Minus wrote:
The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:
My point was their intent. They were not killing for the greater good, they where killing for power and rewards. Killing people while they sleep so you can gain something is pretty evil. Whats the difference between that and the thief who sneaks into a home and slits the throats of the people inside only to rob the house after?

Thing is, they didn't kill them in their sleep to gain something, they killed them to both protect themselves and remove enemies from play.

You seem to be falsely equating the scenario they find themselves in and one where the party decided to go kill a group a villagers for profit. Killing evil and killing innocents are opposites.

As I pointed out there was no way for them to know anyone was evil. Heck at most they might be able to sense a desecrated area of the compound but that is it.

Paladins in D&D 5e do not have Detect Evil they have Divine Sense

Scarab Sages

Shadowlord wrote:
Davor wrote:
Shadowlord wrote:
Davor wrote:
And all of this, I believe, is built on what I think is a fundamental falsehood: The existence of Neutral actions.

If an action is not inherently Good or inherently Evil then it is Neutral, unless there are some other qualifiers that kick it into Good or Evil.

I don't understand how you can say Neutral acts don't exist, everything is either Good or Evil, and also say this:

Davor wrote:
I would argue that all of the things listed are typically not evil, but neutral. There's a reason it's expected that most people are neutral.
Because you specifically mentioned people, or groups of people, being evil, not their actions, which were evil.

Like I said, I really believe those groups I mentioned were LN, I was just trying to make a point. So we agree they are N, we just disagree why.

I believe they are Neutral because they predominantly act with Neutrality.

You believe they are Neutral because they do enough Good to zero out their Evil? Is that right.

So do you believe that all killing is inherently Evil?

Basically, yeah. I wouldn't say that the good neutralizes the bad, rather that their actions are generally split between good and evil, but yeah.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:

As far as i can tell there is still no information concerning either of the rival orders from the first post.

All we have is one rival order giving an assassination mission to the PCs group to kill the leader of the other order.

The only reason that we know the other order is evil is because of the Paladin in the group. There is no other information concerning this order other than they detect as evil and have dark dwarves living inside.

Without further information given what we have is as follows:

1. PCs given mission to assassinate the leader of a rival order.

2. The PCs infiltrate this order pretending to be initiates and join their ranks. The paladin detects evil on most/all acolytes.

3. The PCs begin to search the grounds during the night and alert the orders guards.

4. A fight breaks out and the intruders(the PCs) kill one of the superiors and then kill a few acolytes in their sleep.

5. The PCs then mutilate the bodies trying to make it seem like an animal attack.

The PCs from the information given are the intruders, the sole aggressors, and are killing them for a promise of power, from a rival order, with a justification of they are "evil".

There is no way to tell from this information if this "evil" order actually did anything wrong to warrant their death.

Not everyone who is evil deserves death.

The PCs actions against this order seem evil based upon the information provided.

Except as I said in my one post. The 5e ability does not detect evil, it detects the presence of celestial, fiend, and undead and the like within 60 feet. Unless each of these acolytes had the half-fiend template or were undead they would not PING as evil or anything.

I can only use that which has been provided to me.

Ravingdork said they detected as evil by their paladin, I'm going with that.

Otherwise i have zero clue about 5E. IF it only works on that stuff then I'm clearly wrong. But i've been assuming...

It confused me too so I had to look up Paladins in 5e to find the mix up.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:
The 5e ability does not detect evil, it detects the presence of celestial, fiend, and undead and the like within 60 feet. Unless each of these acolytes had the half-fiend template or were undead they would not PING as evil or anything.

I was unaware of this. GM must have been running it wrong. Will have to tell her next Wednesday night.


Ravingdork wrote:
The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:
The 5e ability does not detect evil, it detects the presence of celestial, fiend, and undead and the like within 60 feet. Unless each of these acolytes had the half-fiend template or were undead they would not PING as evil or anything.
I was unaware of this. GM must have been running it wrong. Will have to tell her next Wednesday night.

I found it in the players handbook in the paladin section if not the first it is one of the first abilities listed.

Liberty's Edge

The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:

As I pointed out there was no way for them to know anyone was evil. Heck at most they might be able to sense a desecrated area of the compound but that is it.

Paladins in D&D 5e do not have Detect Evil they have Divine Sense

GM ran it wrong. Does that matter? Given the information that they had, the actions weren't evil. If it was ran correctly, the actions they took would have been evil.


Ravingdork wrote:
The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:
The 5e ability does not detect evil, it detects the presence of celestial, fiend, and undead and the like within 60 feet. Unless each of these acolytes had the half-fiend template or were undead they would not PING as evil or anything.
I was unaware of this. GM must have been running it wrong. Will have to tell her next Wednesday night.

Let me play Devil's Advocate for just a minute. I will admit the ability states the Paladin can smell evil as an oder and can hear the chime of heavenly bells or whatever when the presence of evil is near. This might have been confused for the old school detect ability.

But really it would not work like that.
If you were in a room with 5 people and you used the PF version you could find out that A, B, D, and E were evil and C was not.

In 5e You have the same scene and you can tell 1 of the 5 is evil.. but not know who and its within 60 ft, which could mean some dude on the second level was giving off Bad vibes and your paladin felt it and thought it was all of them. Or more likely the guy you were sent to kill was emitting Evil and your paladin felt it and got confused with the way the GM described it.

I hope this helps though, but if she did mess up. Ask for a redo.


CN_Minus wrote:
The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:

As I pointed out there was no way for them to know anyone was evil. Heck at most they might be able to sense a desecrated area of the compound but that is it.

Paladins in D&D 5e do not have Detect Evil they have Divine Sense

GM ran it wrong. Does that matter? Given the information that they had, the actions weren't evil. If it was ran correctly, the actions they took would have been evil.

I agree if the GM ran it wrong then it needs to not be held against them, honestly giving them a redo is fair because its the GMs f~&! up and they were running off the wrong entire premise.

However, if they misunderstood what the GM told the Paladin in her description of what they felt when they used their ability then its on them.

Unknowingly killing innocent people is still evil.


I'm pretty sure that at no point they killed innocent people (duergar rarely are), unless RD advises otherwise.


Zhangar wrote:
I'm pretty sure that at no point they killed innocent people (duergar rarely are), unless RD advises otherwise.

Are they Evil Outsiders? I am not 100% but I thought that was the only way for someone to be unable to change their alignment.


Even evil outsiders can be redeemed.

But there's a significant difference between redemption being technically possible and redemption actually being feasible.

The vast majority of duergar won't have the slightest bit of interest in "redemption," as it would mean functionally committing treason and completely abandoning their ways.

Good luck with that.


Zhangar wrote:

Even evil outsiders can be redeemed.

But there's a significant difference between redemption being technically possible and redemption actually being feasible.

The vast majority of duergar won't have the slightest bit of interest in "redemption," as it would mean functionally committing treason and completely abandoning their ways.

Good luck with that.

This was a group of Monks, so Lawful? Maybe they where a strict sect of not normal Duergar? I mean it is the GM's story.


Duergar are normally lawful evil.

Duergar monks would not be unusual, nor indicate duergar of unusual morals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Plus we already know they were evil

It was established in the first post

This conversation has actually REGRESSED


Rynjin wrote:

Plus we already know they were evil

It was established in the first post

This conversation has actually REGRESSED

Yes by an ability that cannot detect evil in that way. I mean at all. It does not work that way. So no we do not.


Shadowlord wrote:
Damon Griffin wrote:
Sleeping creatures are by RAW helpless. You slew helpless creatures in their sleep, so yeah, I'd say you definitely committed an evil (small "e") act.
You mention that by RAW they are helpless. But, where are the rules to support that killing helpless enemies is an Evil act?

C'mon, don't be "that guy."


Rynjin wrote:

Plus we already know they were evil

It was established in the first post

This conversation has actually REGRESSED

It's a Paladin thread. What did you expect, reasonable discourse?

Progress?

Please.

In the words of the first reply to the OP...

SlimGauge wrote:
This is a discussion to be had with your GM and your fellow players. Here, this discussion will only serve to enhance the consumption of popcorn.


Neo2151 wrote:
Shadowlord wrote:
Damon Griffin wrote:
Sleeping creatures are by RAW helpless. You slew helpless creatures in their sleep, so yeah, I'd say you definitely committed an evil (small "e") act.
You mention that by RAW they are helpless. But, where are the rules to support that killing helpless enemies is an Evil act?
C'mon, don't be "that guy."

The CDG rules exist for a reason. They exist right next to flanking and other combat tactics. There is nothing in the description that says it's Evil. Everything in the CRB that is inherently Evil explicitly says so.


It's so much simpler if you ban Coup de Grace like I do.


That logic applies to anything. Things would be simpler if I banned Combat Maneuvers, but that doesnt make them Evil acts.


Shadowlord wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
Shadowlord wrote:
Damon Griffin wrote:
Sleeping creatures are by RAW helpless. You slew helpless creatures in their sleep, so yeah, I'd say you definitely committed an evil (small "e") act.
You mention that by RAW they are helpless. But, where are the rules to support that killing helpless enemies is an Evil act?
C'mon, don't be "that guy."

The CDG rules exist for a reason. They exist right next to flanking and other combat tactics. There is nothing in the description that says it's Evil. Everything in the CRB that is inherently Evil explicitly says so.

And just like the Combat Rules fail to cover Every. Single. Issue. Of. Combat., the Alignment Rules fail to cover every single issue of alignment.

Hence, "don't be 'that guy.'" Because the Rules are not perfectly written and they will not (and should not) address literally every conceivable thing.


What I really want to know is why is a Paladin accepting an Assassination job?

5E Paladins are -not- free from the Good alignment; they're simply no longer tied to Lawful, depending on their choice of Oath.
•Oath of Devotion = Stereotypical LG Paladin. The "shield arm" of the Goodly forces.
•Oath of the Ancients = The Paladin version of a Druid.
•Oath of Vengeance = The CG "sword arm" of the Goodly forces.

ie: They're still inherently tied to being forces for Good.
And Good doesn't assassinate.

Also, all the real-world military comparisons I keep seeing are utterly worthless.
Just because said military force is from "your country" doesn't automatically make them "forces for good." The US is a wonderful example of a government that sends it's military into war for purely political and selfish reasons; hardly a shining example of Goodness and Morality.


The real world military comparisons may be worthless, but if that's the case I'm hard pressed to find the proper words for blanket opinion statements like "Good does not assassinate" that have nothing to back them up.

Is there a word that means less than worthless? It doesn't seem likely, but you never know.


CN_Minus wrote:
The Godd*mn Avatar wrote:
My point was their intent. They were not killing for the greater good, they where killing for power and rewards. Killing people while they sleep so you can gain something is pretty evil. Whats the difference between that and the thief who sneaks into a home and slits the throats of the people inside only to rob the house after?

Thing is, they didn't kill them in their sleep to gain something, they killed them to both protect themselves and remove enemies from play.

You seem to be falsely equating the scenario they find themselves in and one where the party decided to go kill a group a villagers for profit. Killing evil and killing innocents are opposites.

Except the party's goal, as identified in the original post anyway, is not to stop an evil faction in it's tracks.

Their goal is to gain vaguely-defined sky powers.


Rynjin wrote:

The real world military comparisons may be worthless, but if that's the case I'm hard pressed to find the proper words for blanket opinion statements like "Good does not assassinate" that have nothing to back them up.

Is there a word that means less than worthless? It doesn't seem likely, but you never know.

You don't even need real-world morality to explain that "blanket" statement: The game has defined killing for profit as Evil (hence the Assassin alignment restriction). Assassination is killing for profit.


Rynjin wrote:
That logic applies to anything. Things would be simpler if I banned Combat Maneuvers, but that doesnt make them Evil acts.

I believe I was taking the neutral stance, thank you.

Liberty's Edge

Neo2151 wrote:

Except the party's goal, as identified in the original post anyway, is not to stop an evil faction in it's tracks.

Their goal is to gain vaguely-defined sky powers.

Doesn't matter what the stated rewards are, each character can have their own motivations. Don't try to oversimplify things to misconstrue the reality of the situation.

With that reasoning, any mission that had ever had a reward (i.e. all of them) with any killing of any sentient creatures is "murder for hire". It's not about the reward, but the individual motivations.

Scarab Sages

Ravingdork wrote:

\

It can't be both? We have real life American mercenaries who go after terrorists BECAUSE they are paid quite well to do it, but they also only target terrorists BECAUSE they are not evil.

Well, quite a few DoD employees don't think highly of contractors, for that reason. Though I don't think it's only because they think contractors do it for money, they tend to think contractors are also the type of people who like combat a little too much, and want to keep doing it when their service is ended.

I guess that is the average PC.

So ... PCs go adventuring, seeking fame and fortune, and kill a lot of monsters in the process. They are not paid by someone else, but if there were no treasure or other rewards to be had, they certainly would not be doing it. So in the end they are just like any mercenary or assassin. They knew going into the dungeon they'd have to kill beings that aren't actually bothering anyone in town.

QED: All PCs are evil.


Berti Blackfoot wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

\

It can't be both? We have real life American mercenaries who go after terrorists BECAUSE they are paid quite well to do it, but they also only target terrorists BECAUSE they are not evil.

Well, quite a few DoD employees don't think highly of contractors, for that reason. Though I don't think it's only because they think contractors do it for money, they tend to think contractors are also the type of people who like combat a little too much, and want to keep doing it when their service is ended.

I guess that is the average PC.

So ... PCs go adventuring, seeking fame and fortune, and kill a lot of monsters in the process. They are not paid by someone else, but if there were no treasure or other rewards to be had, they certainly would not be doing it. So in the end they are just like any mercenary or assassin. They knew going into the dungeon they'd have to kill beings that aren't actually bothering anyone in town.

QED: All PCs are evil.

My good characters give the majority of their money to charity. Not all PCs are evil.


But it is fun playing evil characters from time to time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seriously?

Even the OP has said to the effect that his GM was probably running the ability wrong and thus they do not know if they were evil. So advocating that no matter what you do to evil is not evil is insane.

According to some of the people here PCs are incapable of being evil no matter if they walked into the home of a local farmer and raped and butchered his wife and child and force fed them to the farmer. So long as the farmer 'detected evil'


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*If you reply to my post, PLEASE read the entire post fully. If you are going to quote me, don't use snippets, use the entire post. I would prefer context with what I said and we all know that soundbites and snippets are notorious for misconstruing a point!*

The OP stated that it 'quickly became obvious that the cultists were evil'. I wonder what happened to give that impression?

If the impression was given because of a blood-soaked altar, tied-up captives, or some such other indicator that these were the 'typical cultists' PCs find adventuring (The psychos or the evil ***holes who will kill anybody to get some boon from their fiendish master,), then I would say that they were well-justified in executing the cultists, sleeping or no, helpless or no.

Most situations, as described above, would make this act fall under the neutral category.

Let's be honest people, who cares about bloodthirsty cultists? Moreover, who SHOULD care about bloodthirsty cultists?

If it was for some other reason, what reason was it? I presume the Detect Evil part came AFTER seeing whatever it was they saw, right?

EDIT: Also, some of these 'if you think this is okay, then you must also think this entirely different scenario is okay too' just seem a tad bit ridiculous.

251 to 300 of 825 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Slaying enemies in their sleep evil? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.