Alignment and actions

Recently in a scenario a friend of mine came up in a dilemma about alignment. He is playing a Lawful Neutral monk that despises evildoers first of all. So we came up against some evil Aspis Consortium guys (hate them!) and after some struggles, we defeated them. They all detected as evil so my friend said he was going to kill them. At that, the GM took exception stating that if he killed them it would be an evil act and he would become Lawful Evil and have to pay atonement to become Neutral again.

Now, I won't argue that cold-blooded murder is not evil--obviously it is. However, I don't think that one evil act should automatically change your alignment to Evil in the same manner that one good act shouldn't automatically brand you Good. It seems fairly draconian that one Evil act will turn someone Evil, but the countless good deeds don't do anything.

So essentially what I'm asking is: Does one evil act turn you Evil? And if so, why does one good act not change your alignment to Good?

1. Not in my opinion. Some GMs have an extremely literal interpretation of the alignment system, however. If they make a statement like that, roll your eyes and don't do the thing they're complaining about, and if it's a problem for you, don't play their table again.

2. That said, a literal interpretation of A should lead to an equally literal interpretation of B, where A and B are opposite sides of the same system. However, nobody ever enforces that. It is mysterious indeed.

Does one evil act turn you Evil?

It depends on the act. (Also, would you really call a handful of executions a single act, regardless of whether it's evil or not?)

And if so, why does one good act not change your alignment to Good?

Because a curiously high percentage of gamers are much better at consistently roleplaying non-good alignments than non-evil ones?

The Tea Elf wrote:

Does one evil act turn you Evil?

It depends on the act. (Also, would you really call a handful of executions a single act, regardless of whether it's evil or not?)

Quote:

And if so, why does one good act not change your alignment to Good?

Because a curiously high percentage of gamers are much better at consistently roleplaying non-good alignments than non-evil ones?

I am not sure if that is not putting the cart before the horse, though this might be more of a chicken/egg issue. I think a lot of players play neutral characters simply because GMs, or even the game (Unholy Blight spamming Erinyes anyone?) punish players for playing good characters without compensating them with offsetting rewards under the notion that being good is its own reward. The latter might be true, but that's not the same as saying, "Playing a good character is its own reward."

The GM's argument was that the individual he was going to murder was helpless (which was true) and performing a coup de grace would be tantamount to murder--an evil act.

However, here is where it gets weird. He later said that if I had cast Sleep on them and they had failed their saves, I could coup de grace them without it being evil.

Personally, I think he was nitpicking and we resolved it simply by not killing the Aspis people.

Because a curiously high percentage of gamers are much better at consistently roleplaying non-good alignments than non-evil ones?

That is not really a good argument. Whether the majority of people play good or evil characters should not be a reason why a double standard should be put in place. And anyways, in PFS no one plays evil PCs. So there is in fact overwhelmingly more Good PCs than Evil PCs in the living campaign.

So essentially what I'm asking is: Does one evil act turn you Evil? And if so, why does one good act not change your alignment to Good?

Depends of the degree of goodness/evilness and GM Fiat.

Some evil deeds would automatically change the alignment, same to good deeds.

The GM's argument was that the individual he was going to murder was helpless (which was true) and performing a coup de grace would be tantamount to murder--an evil act.

Lots of people wrongly believe that a target being helpless or not affects the morality of the kill.

However, here is where it gets weird. He later said that if I had cast Sleep on them and they had failed their saves, I could coup de grace them without it being evil.

Okay, that is indeed weird. I have no idea what the rationale behind that could be. :/

Jiggy wrote wrote:

Because a curiously high percentage of gamers are much better at consistently roleplaying non-good alignments than non-evil ones?

That is not really a good argument. Whether the majority of people play good or evil characters should not be a reason why a double standard should be put in place. And anyways, in PFS no one plays evil PCs. So there is in fact overwhelmingly more Good PCs than Evil PCs in the living campaign.

Apparently I wasn't clear, since neither you nor trollbill seem to have the slightest clue what I was actually saying. But that's okay, because it wasn't an important statement anyway. :)

Some evil deeds would automatically change the alignment, same to good deeds.

Where do you draw the line though? Saving an entire village from being devoured by an archdevil and then banishing the aforementioned fiend is by all accounts good, but no one said that my friend's LN monk should atone for that to maintain his alignment.

The main problem I have with a draconian interpretation of Evil but not Good, is that it punishes a PC for not being Good. For the most part I usually play Good PCs, in fact all my PFS characters are Good. But it rubs me the wrong way when a GM says that someone must pay atonement for executing a torturer or otherwise someone that is obviously evil. There is no Habeas Corpus in Golarion that I am aware of so it is completely fair to play the part of Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

Apparently I wasn't clear, since neither you nor trollbill seem to have the slightest clue what I was actually saying. But that's okay, because it wasn't an important statement anyway. :)

Well now you have me curious. What did you mean? :)

There is no Habeas Corpus in Golarion that I am aware of so it is completely fair to play the part of Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

That's a Lawful issue, not a Good issue. It also depends on the local government.

The Tea Elf wrote:

There is no Habeas Corpus in Golarion that I am aware of so it is completely fair to play the part of Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

That's a Lawful issue, not a Good issue. It also depends on the local government.

Good point. I don't think the Hin Jao Tapestry has a government though. So in a very real way he was the law (no one else was playing lawful). :)

The Tea Elf wrote:

There is no Habeas Corpus in Golarion that I am aware of so it is completely fair to play the part of Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

That's a Lawful issue, not a Good issue. It also depends on the local government.

Exactly.

Kindly and respectfully ask the GM where in the CRB it states that Good cares about how guilty creatures are treated ? Almost all of it is about how you treat innocents.

Now, if this execution is not consistent with the traditions/laws of the Monk's culture (or the local ones sometimes, depending on the GM), that might be cause for a change on the Law/Chaos axe.

The Tea Elf wrote:

Quote:

However, here is where it gets weird. He later said that if I had cast Sleep on them and they had failed their saves, I could coup de grace them without it being evil.

Okay, that is indeed weird. I have no idea what the rationale behind that could be. :/

Well, there's a difference between 'surrendered and tied up and harmless' and 'about to wake up and start trying to kill you again'. Not sure if that was happening here.

Well, there's a difference between 'surrendered and tied up and harmless' and 'about to wake up and start trying to kill you again'. Not sure if that was happening here.

I don't see anything in the OP about surrender. I'm not aware of any laws or cultural customs under which a person who survives the knockout blow is automatically considered to have surrendered (and their opponent to have accepted that surrender).

Yes, their Morale stated they would fight to the death. They were unconscious but stable, the monk was just going to change their status from Dying to Dead. :)

I personally don't feel that executing enemies that could in the future come back to kill you (even a hypothetical future that doesn't happen in the episodic nature of PFS) is evil.

Others do.

This is a situation where table variation will reign supreme.

The guide, however, has guidelines for how to track evil actions and gives a guideline on when a character might be turned evil. The guide gives single act transformation examples of burning down an orphanage. Executing dangerous enemies who themselves evil hardly seems on the same scale.

So at best you mark an evil act on their chronicle sheet.

I don't know of any country in the world that doesn't make it's criminals "helpless" before they are legally executed. Therefore, executing a helpless prisoner is only evil if you believe most forms of legal execution are evil. The issue essentially boils down to this. If the character has the morale authority to act as judge, jury & executioner, then it is not an evil act. If the character doesn't care if they have the morale authority, then it is evil. Now a lot of arguments can be made as to whether or not a character does have that morale authority, but that is a different argument.

Also note that just because something detects as evil doesn't guarantee it is evil. One only has to have evil intent to detect as evil. And just because someone has evil intent doesn't mean they will actually act on it.

Also note that just because something detects as evil doesn't guarantee it is evil. One only has to have evil intent to detect as evil. And just because someone has evil intent doesn't mean they will actually act on it.

I thought Detect Chaos/Good/Evil/Law worked based on your alignment and hit dice, not intentions--hence the table with talking about Aligned creatures, Undead, Outsiders, etc.

trollbill wrote:

Also note that just because something detects as evil doesn't guarantee it is evil. One only has to have evil intent to detect as evil. And just because someone has evil intent doesn't mean they will actually act on it.

I thought Detect Chaos/Good/Evil/Law worked based on your alignment and hit dice, not intentions--hence the table with talking about Aligned creatures, Undead, Outsiders, etc.

Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.

Though I would contest the claim that something you weren't actually planning to do is really your "intent". Maybe I should bring that up the next time there's an argument centered around "RAI". ;)

trollbill wrote:

Also note that just because something detects as evil doesn't guarantee it is evil. One only has to have evil intent to detect as evil. And just because someone has evil intent doesn't mean they will actually act on it.

I thought Detect Chaos/Good/Evil/Law worked based on your alignment and hit dice, not intentions--hence the table with talking about Aligned creatures, Undead, Outsiders, etc.

Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil, and as such this spell does not detect them. Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.

The Tea Elf wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Also note that just because something detects as evil doesn't guarantee it is evil. One only has to have evil intent to detect as evil. And just because someone has evil intent doesn't mean they will actually act on it.

I thought Detect Chaos/Good/Evil/Law worked based on your alignment and hit dice, not intentions--hence the table with talking about Aligned creatures, Undead, Outsiders, etc.

Detect Evil wrote:

Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.

Though I would contest the claim that something you weren't actually planning to do is really your "intent". Maybe I should bring that up the next time there's an argument centered around "RAI". ;)

I admit that "intent" is subject to interpretation, but certainly it is possible to change your mind in between when you plan something and when you actually do it.

I don't know of any country in the world that doesn't make it's criminals "helpless" before they are legally executed. Therefore, executing a helpless prisoner is only evil if you believe most forms of legal execution are evil. The issue essentially boils down to this. If the character has the morale authority to act as judge, jury & executioner, then it is not an evil act. If the character doesn't care if they have the morale authority, then it is evil. Now a lot of arguments can be made as to whether or not a character does have that morale authority, but that is a different argument.

Also note that just because something detects as evil doesn't guarantee it is evil. One only has to have evil intent to detect as evil. And just because someone has evil intent doesn't mean they will actually act on it.

And in most cases the determination on whether you have the authority or not is an issue of law and chaos. Not good and evil.

trollbill wrote:

I don't know of any country in the world that doesn't make it's criminals "helpless" before they are legally executed. Therefore, executing a helpless prisoner is only evil if you believe most forms of legal execution are evil. The issue essentially boils down to this. If the character has the morale authority to act as judge, jury & executioner, then it is not an evil act. If the character doesn't care if they have the morale authority, then it is evil. Now a lot of arguments can be made as to whether or not a character does have that morale authority, but that is a different argument.

Also note that just because something detects as evil doesn't guarantee it is evil. One only has to have evil intent to detect as evil. And just because someone has evil intent doesn't mean they will actually act on it.

And in most cases the determination on whether you have the authority or not is an issue of law and chaos. Not good and evil.

Indeed:

"Should they die?" <-- Good/Evil
"Who should do it?" <-- Law/Chaos

He should have let them to die by themselves. But maybe the GM would have deemed it unusually cruel :-)))

:-)))

I interpret this as the smile of a fat guy with multiple chins.

trollbill wrote:

I don't know of any country in the world that doesn't make it's criminals "helpless" before they are legally executed. Therefore, executing a helpless prisoner is only evil if you believe most forms of legal execution are evil. The issue essentially boils down to this. If the character has the morale authority to act as judge, jury & executioner, then it is not an evil act. If the character doesn't care if they have the morale authority, then it is evil. Now a lot of arguments can be made as to whether or not a character does have that morale authority, but that is a different argument.

Also note that just because something detects as evil doesn't guarantee it is evil. One only has to have evil intent to detect as evil. And just because someone has evil intent doesn't mean they will actually act on it.

And in most cases the determination on whether you have the authority or not is an issue of law and chaos. Not good and evil.

Note my choice of the word "moral" authority rather than "legal" authority.

Note my choice of the word "moral" authority rather than "legal" authority.

This is a distinction not made in the rules; anything involving "authority" (not only the legal sort) is on the law/chaos axis.

EDIT: In fact, to be specific: the rules for Good/Evil never mention "authority" at all, while the Law/Chaos rules reference it multiple times—and never with any sort of qualifier that would imply that it's only talking about "legal" authority.

trollbill wrote:

Note my choice of the word "moral" authority rather than "legal" authority.

This is a distinction not made in the rules; anything involving "authority" (not only the legal sort) is on the law/chaos axis.

If that is the case then you never have the "right" to kill anyone based on the good/evil axis. You only have it based on the chaos/law axis. Therefore killing is either always inherently good, always inherently evil or always inherently neutral. There should be no ambiguity.

Jiggy wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Note my choice of the word "moral" authority rather than "legal" authority.

This is a distinction not made in the rules; anything involving "authority" (not only the legal sort) is on the law/chaos axis.

If that is the case then you never have the "right" to kill anyone based on the good/evil axis. You only have it based on the chaos/law axis. Therefore killing is either always inherently good, always inherently evil or always inherently neutral. There should be no ambiguity.

No, that does not follow. The CRB alignment rules contain references to the value or destruction of innocent life, relating to the good/evil axis.

So killing someone is good or evil based on things like whether they deserve it, while it's lawful or chaotic based on whether or not you personally have the authority to be the one carrying it out.

@Jiggy,

What would you think about a paladin who executes an arsonist that set fire to an orphanage? Would it be Good/Evil? Would it Lawful/Chaotic? My opinion is that as a servant/protector of good, he would be well within his right as a paladin to go Axe Cop on the arsonist and collect his head. What do you think?

trollbill wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Note my choice of the word "moral" authority rather than "legal" authority.

This is a distinction not made in the rules; anything involving "authority" (not only the legal sort) is on the law/chaos axis.

If that is the case then you never have the "right" to kill anyone based on the good/evil axis. You only have it based on the chaos/law axis. Therefore killing is either always inherently good, always inherently evil or always inherently neutral. There should be no ambiguity.

No, that does not follow. The CRB alignment rules contain references to the value or destruction of innocent life, relating to the good/evil axis.

So killing someone is good or evil based on things like whether they deserve it, while it's lawful or chaotic based on whether or not you personally have the authority to be the one carrying it out.

But where are you getting the "authority" to determine if they deserve it?

But where are you getting the "authority" to determine if they deserve it?

It could be a personal code of honour. It doesn't have to come from a government. Consider the gunslingers of the wild west or any explorers in a wild frontier. I would consider a personal code of honour/conduct as valid legal "authority" as an actual writ from a magistrate.

To give an example:

Heinous evil villain gets captured and tried. Being an evil SOB who will just keep hurting and oppressing no matter what, he's sentenced to death for the good of all. His execution is scheduled. The act of killing him is good because he needs to die for the sake of protecting innocent life. The act of killing him (in his scheduled execution at the hands of the designated executioner) is also lawful, because it's conforming to the applicable authorities/laws/structure for such things. So the execution is lawful good.

Now, suppose this execution is (due to judicial backlog) scheduled for several weeks/months in the future. Knowing that the villain has sufficient external resources/minions to effect an escape in that amount of time, Mr. Pathfinder realizes that everyone is still in grave danger. Therefore, he sneaks into the prison and slaughters the villain in his sleep. Nothing changed about whether or not the villain should die; it's still the same situation. Therefore, killing him is still a good act. However, since Mr. Pathfinder circumvented authority and took matters into his own hands, it has become a chaotic act. Therefore, killing the villain is now chaotic good.

But wait! Plot twist! On the eve of Mr. P's plans of killing the villain, Mr. P discovers incontrovertible proof that the villain was framed! They've got the wrong man! Well, obviously if Mr. P went through with the killing it would now be an evil act, as he'd be intentionally killing an innocent person. And since he's still circumventing authority, it remains chaotic: the killing is now chaotic evil.

Alternatively, he could show this evidence to the authorities in an attempt to save the man. Now the powers that be understand that the man is innocent. Should the execution go forward in spite of this (maybe because of a legal technicality that prevents overturning the sentence, or perhaps something more sinister), the killing will become evil: taking an innocent life. However, since it's the authorities doing it, it remains lawful. The execution is now lawful evil.

-------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully someone somewhere finds that helpful, or at least entertaining. :)

But where are you getting the "authority" to determine if they deserve it?

That's not a question of "authority". Either they deserve to die or they don't, regardless of what anyone thinks. Hopefully the people who decide to do something about it will be correct on that point, but their capacity (or lack thereof) to figure that out is not what the word "authority" means.

@Jiggy,

What would you think about a paladin who executes an arsonist that set fire to an orphanage? Would it be Good/Evil? Would it Lawful/Chaotic? My opinion is that as a servant/protector of good, he would be well within his right as a paladin to go Axe Cop on the arsonist and collect his head. What do you think?

First, regardless of alignment, the paladin's code requires him to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents", so he has to punish him or fall.

As to your question, killing a dangerous murderer—thereby protecting his future innocent victims—is an act of protecting innocent life, and therefore good.

How lawful/chaotic it would be depends a bit on the circumstances/locale, though a paladin does carry a certain amount of authority in most places just by being a paladin.

Either they deserve to die or they don't, regardless of what anyone thinks.

If it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, then good and evil are absolutes. Which should mean there should be no ambiguity. But there is ambiguity, therefore they are not absolutes and thus it does matter what people think. If you have no authority to judge whether someone is good or evil, then your judgment of them is irrelevant and the entire meaning of good & evil becomes irrelevant. Only Law and Chaos matter.

On an ironic side note, the original D&D rules only had Law, Neutrality & Chaos as alignments.

Jiggy wrote:

Either they deserve to die or they don't, regardless of what anyone thinks.

If it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, then good and evil are absolutes.

In the game world, yes, that's correct. Good and evil are absolute, measurable, functional forces that can be directly interacted with. If you would have hit me with an attack except I had protection from [alignment] up for an extra +2, it doesn't matter what either of us (in-character) thinks your alignment is. We could even both agree on your alignment, but both be wrong, and the spell would interact with your TRUE alignment.

That's how it is in the game world.

Which should mean there should be no ambiguity. But there is ambiguity, therefore they are not absolutes and thus it does matter what people think.

No, that does not follow. Something being an absolute doesn't mean everyone will understand it perfectly. Someone might listen to the jingling in my pocket and think "He's got a couple coins in there". Someone else might think "No, it's a LOT of coins", someone else might think it's my keys, someone else might think it's both, etc. There's ambiguity because no one can prove what's in my pocket until I show them; but that ambiguity doesn't mean that the contents of my pocket are whatever the most people agree on. The contents of my pocket are a fixed absolute, regardless of what people think, even if people disagree.

Just because it's hard to figure out whether something is good or evil, doesn't mean its moral nature isn't already fixed.

Obviously you don't have to adopt that view of the real world, but it's pretty obviously how the Pathfinder world works. It'd be pretty hard for a detection spell to function, or for a paladin to fall for committing an evil act, or for holy smite and friends to do what they do, if good/evil cared what people thought.

trollbill wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Either they deserve to die or they don't, regardless of what anyone thinks.

If it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, then good and evil are absolutes.

In the game world, yes, that's correct. Good and evil are absolute, measurable, functional forces that can be directly interacted with. If you would have hit me with an attack except I had protection from [alignment] up for an extra +2, it doesn't matter what either of us (in-character) thinks your alignment is. We could even both agree on your alignment, but both be wrong, and the spell would interact with your TRUE alignment.

That's how it is in the game world.

Quote:

Which should mean there should be no ambiguity. But there is ambiguity, therefore they are not absolutes and thus it does matter what people think.

No, that does not follow. Something being an absolute doesn't mean everyone will understand it perfectly. Someone might listen to the jingling in my pocket and think "He's got a couple coins in there". Someone else might think "No, it's a LOT of coins", someone else might think it's my keys, someone else might think it's both, etc. There's ambiguity because no one can prove what's in my pocket until I show them; but that ambiguity doesn't mean that the contents of my pocket are whatever the most people agree on. The contents of my pocket are a fixed absolute, regardless of what people think, even if people disagree.

Just because it's hard to figure out whether something is good or evil, doesn't mean its moral nature isn't already fixed.

Obviously you don't have to adopt that view of the real world, but it's pretty obviously how the Pathfinder world works. It'd be pretty hard for a detection spell to function, or for a paladin to fall for committing an evil act, or for holy smite and friends to do what they do, if good/evil cared what people thought.

Excellent point, and you are correct about it being absolute. But even though it is absolute, someone is still making a subjective decision as to whether or not someone is in violation of the absolute. And since that decision has an effect upon that person, then the authority to make that decision must come from somewhere. You are claiming authority only comes from the Chaos/Law axis. But the X axis has no bearing on the Y access. Neither can effect each other. So how can Chaos/Law give authority over Good/Evil?

To give an example:

Heinous evil villain gets captured and tried.

The problem here is that, unless you have an absolute arbiter to go with your absolute morality, then someone is making a decision that is effecting that villain's life. Since people are acting on that decision, then the person that made that decision must have had authority to do so. Since the Law/Chaos axis has no bearing on the Good/Evil access, how is it possible that the authority to decide good and evil can come from the Law/Chaos axis?

In the game world, yes, that's correct. Good and evil are absolute, measurable, functional forces that can be directly interacted with. If you would have hit me with an attack except I had protection from [alignment] up for an extra +2, it doesn't matter what either of us (in-character) thinks your alignment is. We could even both agree on your alignment, but both be wrong, and the spell would interact with your TRUE alignment.

That's how it is in the game world.

Obviously you don't have to adopt that view of the real world, but it's pretty obviously how the Pathfinder world works. It'd be pretty hard for a detection spell to function, or for a paladin to fall for committing an evil act, or for holy smite and friends to do what they do, if good/evil cared what people thought.

Its actually not that simple. One can detect as evil but not be evil (a neutral cleric of an evil god being the simplest example. Different God granted abilities behave differently in differentcircumstancesI

He is playing a Lawful Neutral monk that despises evildoers first of all

Hmmm, so if his #1 "hatred" is directed towards evil-doers, then he probably should be LG already. Of course, your description is only a single event in the character's life, so maybe he's kicking a puppy for every cat he saves from a tree*.

There are dozens (hundreds?) of threads that explore alignment and action responsibility and the ony thing determined is that no one can agree on how the system works or how a specific action should be categorized. It is perhaps the oldest argument in RPG and saying you will see table variation is the understatement of the century. There's a reason people often say not to discuss religion (alignment?) and politics. ;-)

for those who like to try and read tone into forum comments that was sarcasm dripping from the latter half of that statement. I HATE the concept of an action balance within the alignment system.

Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil, and as such this spell does not detect them. Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.

This is also a direct quote from the detect evil spell from the CRB and to be honest, I thought Pathfinder had removed that language. I am sooo glad it still exists. Course, I have never seen a GM grant a positive detection, based on evil intentions, for a creature without an actual evil alignment. It is also noteworthy that detect spells are perhaps the best example of a widely improperly applied rule in PFS. I rarely see a GM applying the "degrees of evil" (or whatever alignment) table from page 266. Most creatures, except those with a defined aura (pally, cleric, etc), aligned outsiders, or aligned undead* will radiate an alignment until they reach mid/high level. Kinda sucks for a paladin's smite if s/he cannot determine if the target is evil before using it. Course, that may make playing a pally more interesting for some, moral challenge/test and all.

*its strange to say "aligned" undead. I am not aware of any undead that are not evil, but I admit to not digging too deep.

Bob, when we first met at 3-Con, you ran my little paladin through a module. It has non-evil undead.

As to your question, killing a dangerous murderer—thereby protecting his future innocent victims—is an act of protecting innocent life, and therefore good.

On this I disagree. Where are those innocent future victims I am protecting ? I do not see them anywhere.

Your reasoning basically says that a Good person should systematically a dangerous murderer. What about redemption then ? Does it become a non-Good act because we are not killing the guy ?

And if redemption does not exist, then we come to the "once Evil, always Evil" mindset which promptly becomes Evil = Guilty = Dead at the hand of the Paladin. Even for an Evil guy who has never hurt an innocent in his life. Dead just because surely killing him is protecting future innocent victims, and thus Good.

This is subjective enough to be a legitimate DM's call. One evil act can in fact catapult you right down the alignment system if its severe enough. Many consider killing a helpless person to be evil enough to do that. The DM warned the player in advance what his take on the alignment system is, and it stands at the table.

Personally I like the idea of someone strict enough to carry out their own executions... provided the person really, reaaaaaly has it coming.

Tell him to take ranks in Judge, Jury and Executioner, then its legit.

*its strange to say "aligned" undead. I am not aware of any undead that are not evil, but I admit to not digging too deep.

It's a holdover from earlier editions when things without the intelligence to make moral decisions were automatically neutral. All non-intelligent undead were neutral by default.

And, IMO, since alignment is supposed to represent your choices and feelings, unintelligent undead should still be neutral. But it was a design decision to make undead always evil in the PFRPG. Hopefully these sorts of artifacts can be cleared up in the next printing of the CRB, or Pathfinder 2.0 (whichever comes first).

Well, here's irony for you. I just ran a game at our local game store. The party needed to get information from an NPC who needed some minor surgery. The party cleric does a heal check to help the NPC while the sorcerer casts infernal healing on him to help with any damage from the operation. Now, the party has an Oracle who worships a god of execution and, much like the OP's monk, is always looking for an excuse, any excuse, to "execute evil." So he does his usual trick of casting detect evil to see if the NPC is worthy of execution. The NPC is Chaotic Neutral. But, of course, the sorcerer had just cast infernal healing on him so he did, indeed, detect as evil. And no one, including the sorcerer who cast the spell, clued to this. The Oracle then begins debating if he should 'execute' the NPC while I inwardly chuckled at whether or not the Oracle was going to need an atonement at the end of this. But they needed information from the NPC and he hadn't done anything outwardly evil, so he decided to hold off the execution.