LOREN PECHTEL 17's page

How is an executioner going to "slay a challenging foe that seeks to bring [them] to justice for [their] crimes or usurp [their] position"?

The justice bit is irrelevant, since that whole scenario presumes lawful authority to execute in the first place (so no "crime" is being committed" and there's no need to bring the person "to justice"). So we're left with slaying a challenging foe attempting to "usurp the position of executioner". So, the executioner, what ... kills their opponent in the next executioner election cycle? Kills off the next person who applies for the job? How does that work? And how is it not evil to slay someone who is trying to take your lawful job for their own employment?

Suppose you are in a society that permits advancement by dueling, the position going to the victor?

Why has no one stopped to consider the very nature of the feudal system when looking at this feat?

What Knight didn't fight for his own glory as much as for the glory of his liege-lord or king?

King A is at war with King B. Army A is sieging the castle of King B. In the first hours of the siege, the Knight in charge is going to order that all of the farm fields in the surrounding hamlets and the crofter's cottages be razed to prevent further resupply of King B's garrison.

How many "intelligent non-combatants" do you think die in this process? This is nothing more than war as usual to the average feudal mindset.

But such kills go against the rule that it must be for personal or no reasons.

I think I see a way it could be done without being evil:

You live in a society where murder carries the death penalty, but the local authorities ignore honor killings--nothing is done about them.

Take a sadist who doesn't actually want to do evil--instead, he decides to engage in his sadism on those whose actions already warrant the death penalty.

Intelligent--yes.

Noncombatant--we are talking about civilians in society. While they have previously killed I don't think that's enough to make them a combatant.

I could see such a person being neutral.

Never TPKed, never been in a party that was TPKed.

My policy as a DM has always been that the dice won't kill you. There are no save-or-die spells, anything that by the book is a save-or-die takes you to death's door instead. I've never faced a situation like the whole party blowing a save-or-suck but I would not allow it to become a TPK if it happened. I would also hold back if I realized I had put something too powerful in, though.

If it's the party being stupid, though--the closest I have ever come to a TPK was a 1E fireball. An experienced player fired it blindly at an archer that had been harassing them from the darkness. It burned out right in their faces. (I was filling an appropriate number of 5' squares, the squares directly in front of the party got fried.) Anybody that failed their save against it was going to be down if not dead and I would have let the results stand however they came out. I would have given them a save bonus, though, as they were at the very edge of the blast zone and had a lot more time than usual to react. (They were something like 100' from the detonation point.)