My group are still playing the first adventure and managed to capture Filge alive (he surrendered when he realised he would be defeated) then after interogating him a while, they decided to kill him. Most are neutral and/or chaotic aligned, but none are evil.
It seems to me that though he is thoroughly unpleasant, there is no proof that Filge has killed anyone, and as he pointed out to the pcs, they did break into his property...
(I must admit the pcs had some provocation: the party thief had decided to solo the observatory and was killed by the Tomb mote when he broke into the store. Filge had 'invited' him to be a 'guest' at the dining-table by the time the rest of the party got there! Still as Filge pointed out he was a thief and had been killed by a 'guard-dog', not murdered.)
I'd be interested whether other DMs consider this an evil act, with possible alignment consequences etc., and if so how would they 'play' it.
What follows is my opinion since we all ought to be familiar with the fact that alignment is subjective. Killing Filge could be considered mercenary, and it certainly isn't lawful behavior. Nevertheless, I wouldn't call it evil unless the party did it out of malicious intent. Killing a helpless foe isn't evil in my book. It is highly chaotic since the character is deciding to take the law into his own hands; it should therefore be a gross violation of paladin code and possibly a revokation of spell-casting for clerics of lawful gods until they atone (although under certain circumstances LE gods might condone it). But since the helpless foe is still a foe, it isn't really morally reprehensible to kill him as there are numerous justifications for it: he will spread his evil if he is allowed to live, he forfeited his right to be treated humanely when he turned to evil, he may return to kill me if i let him go (more a selfish reason than a good one, but justifiable if the player character is an ardent and active supporter of good).
If you cause any alignment changes, I say it should be on the ethical axis (law-chaos) rather than moral (good-evil). Torturing him or making him a slave could be considered evil, but meting out vigilante justice shouldn't be.
My PCs took Filge to Allustrans manor and they are keeping him there for reasons unkown to me...
I think it would be hard to see Filge and his handiwork and conlude that it was safe to let him go.
Killing him might be a bit harsh, but not enough to make me (as a DM) to penalize them.
Jack
I don't know...
Man, this is tough. Well, I think that if the PCs have no in-game proof that he has committed evil acts, or at least hunches, than it would be morally questionable. And, they should consider the fact that the law hasn't dealt with him already(assuming the PCs don't know that the watch is corrupt). Try to think of things from their characters standpoints. That should help you get into their mindset, assuming they have roleplayed enough for you to get an idea about their personalities.
However, I would be careful about forcing an alignment change. Just tell your player's to consider what their characters did, and the emotional repercussions for further RPing.
Hope this helps,
WaterdhavianFlapjack
My PCs took Filge to Allustrans manor and they are keeping him there for reasons unkown to me...
Onrie: You might want to ask them why, just so you know. Plus, it is possible that Balabar Smenk will send agents to Allustan's manor to "retrieve" him, or assasinate him if the only recourse. Try to spice things up for them, and show them through Balabar's actions just how important (or unimportant) Filge is.
BTW, how's your campaign going?
Do you have a journal?
WaterdhavianFlapjack
|
If you cause any alignment changes, I say it should be on the ethical axis (law-chaos) rather than moral (good-evil). Torturing him or making him a slave could be considered evil, but meting out vigilante justice shouldn't be.
I subscribe to airwalkrr's logic. Exhuming graves for building materials to make undead slaves isn't "good" nor "lawful". The way Filge has set up the old observatory should make it clear that it's occupier doesn't subscribe to a "good" or "lawful" philosophy. Killing a defenseless antagonist is certainly "cold" but certainly within the confines of the alignments described by the DM. I think I would have raised more of an eyebrow if they turned Filge in and offered to testify at his trial.
If the PCs start making a habit of this...well, then I think it's time to play the alignment shifting game.
Plus, it is possible that Balabar Smenk will send agents to Allustan's manor to ... assasinate him...
I think this is the BEST way to handle it. *Evil DM grin*
My group are still playing the first adventure and managed to capture Filge alive (he surrendered when he realised he would be defeated) then after interogating him a while, they decided to kill him. Most are neutral and/or chaotic aligned, but none are evil.
Killing a helpless foe -after- he's surrendered is definitely evil. Just because he's an evil necromancer up to no good, and may have killed people while defending his lair, does not change the fact that the players accepted his surrender. To act in a consistent, good way, they should take him to the Heironeous temple (given that the sheriff's men are susceptible to bribes).
Confronting a necromancer (with clear evidence all around) and killing him in the midst of combat is vigilantism - and not evil - but killing him while defenseless (and after his surrender) is certainly an evil act.
I think the telling point here is that they killed him, AFTER he surrendered, but also AFTER they got the information they needed out of him. If they accepted his surrender and then got what they needed from him, the LAWFUL thing to do would be to turn him over to whatever authorities they trust to deal with him. The GOOD thing to do in this situation is not so cut and dry. During their conversation, if the PCs came to the realization that Filge was unredeemably evil and would continue on his necromantic path if released, then I, in my game, would rule that they satisfied their alignments. If, however, the PCs just killed him when they got all the information they needed without determining Filge's chance of redemption, then it was an evil act and should be punished appropriately.
Killing a helpless foe after he has surrendered or been captured and rendered harmless is what capital punishment is all about. One might (and probably should) argue whether he should have been turned over to 'proper authorities.'
But what about highly-chaotic types that don't believe in or recognize the legitimacy of those so-called authorities?
What they did is illegal, but they were presumably ridding the world of a murderous, unrepentant psychopath -- that's good in my book. One would hope, however, that they verified Filge was indeed such a psychopath :/
Just my two cents :)
Jack
Killing a helpless foe -after- he's surrendered is definitely evil. Just because he's an evil necromancer up to no good, and may have killed people while defending his lair, does not change the fact that the players accepted his surrender. To act in a consistent, good way, they should take him to the Heironeous temple (given that the sheriff's men are susceptible to bribes).
Confronting a necromancer (with clear evidence all around) and killing him in the midst of combat is vigilantism - and not evil - but killing him while defenseless (and after his surrender) is certainly an evil act.
|
I'm inclined to go along with the 'it's not good behavior, but it may not be outright evil, either' line of thought. Diamond Lake is a hard place to get true justice, so they might be rightfully worried about ability of the criminal justice system to deal with Filge. There is substantial evidence to point to Filge murdering people (the whole dinner party scene). Even though he is right that his 'watch dog' killed the party member, there are arrows pointing to his other crimes.
In Eric's game, after Vyth is killed by the Faceless One, Dram tells Gar to kill him (after they had talked about taking him prisoner). Gar chopped off his head without a seconds compunction. This is naked retaliation for a friend. The Faceless One was out and defenseless on the ground. There was no way he could be a threat or defend himself. He hadn't surrendered per se, but the situation wasn't that far removed. Does this make Gar and Dram evil? No, but it does tarnish them a little.
I guess you need to weigh all the evidence... Is it because they don't think the 'law' can provide satisfactory punishment? Is it retribution for a dead party member? Is it because they thought he would be a 'loose end' that may come back to haunt them?
You may not want to give them an 'on paper' penalty, but instead have the more morally principled of them to have gripping nightmares about Filge laughing at them from the grave, coming at them with his srynge of vile fluids...then wake up screaming with phantom pains in their arms where the needle punctured them in thier dreams. It may really spark more role play down the road when they decide to callously off a defeated bad guy...
Law, imo, would respond to killing a surrendered foe as serious "vigilantism", perhaps even illegal, and therefore wrong. The PCs are not, unless I'm missing something, designated representatives of the townspeople or the Sheriff - and who can mete out justice. A truly lawful character might suggest turning him over to the (corrupt) Sheriff.
Chaos, imo, reflects being guided by one's own judgment of rules *over* that of the authorities... and chaotic characters here (since they accepted a surrender) would not kill a disarmed foe unless the PCs were also evil (or truly "chaotic" in their behavior, in the "random" sense). A chaotic good character should make the decision on turning him over *not* to the Sheriff but rather the Heironean temple, in order to serve "justice" rather than the rule of law.
Haven't y'all read Spiderman? ;-)
Laeknir
Killing a helpless foe after he has surrendered or been captured and rendered harmless is what capital punishment is all about. One might (and probably should) argue whether he should have been turned over to 'proper authorities.'
But what about highly-chaotic types that don't believe in or recognize the legitimacy of those so-called authorities?
What they did is illegal, but they were presumably ridding the world of a murderous, unrepentant psychopath -- that's good in my book. One would hope, however, that they verified Filge was indeed such a psychopath :/ Just my two cents :) Jack
Here's how a dialogue might go, imo, for the surrendered and disarmed Filge:
LG: "We should take him to the Sheriff... I know they're self-serving, but they are the law in town."
NG: "Justice should be served, not the letter of the law, Mr. Paladin. Until we get evidence on the Sheriff's illegal activities, the temple of Heironeous or Allustan should hold him for us."
CG: "No way, he'll bribe his way out of jail, or Smenk will... or he'll escape somehow. I say take him to the temple of Heironeous and let them arrange a trial!"
LN: "Feh! Evil schmeevil... He did dig up graves, though, and that's wrong. To the Sheriff's office where they can deal with him."
TN: "I don't know... on the whole, he's evil and should be punished, but I'll leave it up to you. The balance probably would be served by killing him, I suppose. I know, let's vote!"
CN: "Why are we standing around here... kill him if you wish, or not. I don't care. But we're not dragging him anywhere."
LE: "How tiresome... I suppose we'll have to take him to the Sheriff for digging up the corpses. If only he had a permit."
NE: "Kill him and get this tiresome exchange over with. Or recruit him... I don't care."
CE: "If he won't join us, kill him slowly and painfully. Wait, we're on a schedule here... make a decision, Filge... live or die?"
My group are still playing the first adventure and managed to capture Filge alive (he surrendered when he realised he would be defeated) then after interogating him a while, they decided to kill him. Most are neutral and/or chaotic aligned, but none are evil.Killing a helpless foe -after- he's surrendered is definitely evil. Just because he's an evil necromancer up to no good, and may have killed people while defending his lair, does not change the fact that the players accepted his surrender. To act in a consistent, good way, they should take him to the Heironeous temple (given that the sheriff's men are susceptible to bribes).
Confronting a necromancer (with clear evidence all around) and killing him in the midst of combat is vigilantism - and not evil - but killing him while defenseless (and after his surrender) is certainly an evil act.
I agree that killing Filge after surrender is an evil act. The PCs are feeling out the boundaries of the moral world. Turn the person who did the actual deed one alignment closer to evil and if any persist, then repeat as need be. Maybe they want to play an evil-nuetral crew, but let them know their decisions have consequences.
Filge also surrendered in my campaign. One of the players is a warforged paladin of the Silver Flame. The party escorted him to the Church where he was bound in a cell while a message was sent to Sharn. The party doesn't trust Cubin or Neff to administer justice to an ally of Smenk. The responses from the dead bodies in Filge's dining hall implies that he murdered associates in Sharn and that he's a wanted criminal. Authorities in Sharn are investigating the crimes and the party may or may not escort Filge to Sharn when they leave for Blackwall Keep (I haven't decided yet).
This is the lawful thing to do. The cleric zone of truth'd a confession of murder. Coupled with the paladin's detect evil, the party was entitled to an execution as a chaotic good act in my campaign.
Creative Director
|
I'd say that killing Filge after he is caught would certainly be a Chaotic act. Torturing him for information would be an evil act. But killing him after the party's done interrogating him? Not evil, especially if you look at the act as an execution of a criminal. I'd say it'd be more evil to let him go without supervision. There's plenty of evidence in his tower that he's up to no good; remember that creating undead is an evil act.
Lawful characters should balk at executing Filge more than good characters should. The best solution to the Filge Problem for a Lawful character is to turn him over to the authorities, which in Diamond Lake probably means the garrison.
Thanks for your replies - an interesting discussion!
I've been DM with this group for 15 years and is the first campaign in a long time, where there hasn't been a paladin/lawful aligned cleric; there is only one good character, a female halfling exotic-dancer (bard) and she wasn't present that night.
The pcs know the sheriff is corrupt, but have had fair dealings with the church of Heironeus. I felt they were a bit harsh to take the law into their own hands - he had pleaded for his life quite convincingly (well I thought so anyway!). I think they played to their alignments - just - but will act if they make a habit of it. Overall I think he got what he deserved.
I don't like alignment changes, it usually disrupts the campaign and can be a pain to run in my experience. For example, I've only ever experienced one 'evil' campaign that really worked (as a player rather than DM) and that was becuase it was a small group of 2-3 players, as soon as more joined it fell apart. I have five players in this group!
It's been helpful to see how others would approach it.
I'd say that killing Filge after he is caught would certainly be a Chaotic act. Torturing him for information would be an evil act. But killing him after the party's done interrogating him? Not evil, especially if you look at the act as an execution of a criminal. I'd say it'd be more evil to let him go without supervision. There's plenty of evidence in his tower that he's up to no good; remember that creating undead is an evil act.
Weeelll... except that an accepted surrender is essentially agreeing with his request to "please, don't kill me, I know I'm a bad man... I'll give you info if you spare my life!"
Yes, he's definitely doing evil - digging up graves, stealing corpses, and animating undead. And he's likely to do more. But given the evidence to that point in the story, a good character (imo) should either refuse his surrender and end his evil life on the spot (with no talking!) *or* accept his surrender and eventually take him to an authority. Killing him after his surrender means that the PCs a) lied to him, b) kept him alive for self-serving reasons, and c) are killing someone who has laid down their weapons based on that agreement. What matters here for "good or evil" on the part of the PCs is that they've accepted his parley, no?
The pcs know the sheriff is corrupt, but have had fair dealings with the church of Heironeus. I felt they were a bit harsh to take the law into their own hands...
That's one of the reasons that I like this adventure path so much. At the outset it's hard to play a LG Paladin, but there are extremely good roleplaying opportunities here. In a really dark setting, where the "law" isn't really all that "just"... what's a Paladin to do?
Technically, lawful PCs should take Filge in to the Sheriff (since they're the civilian authorities). If they're wanting a "just" solution, though, and put a Paladin through his paces, the Heironean church or the garrison would do. Even though the latter are military (and for protection and defense of the town from invaders - rather than citizens from each other), the outcome will likely be more good than lawful per se.
I'd say that killing Filge after he is caught would certainly be a Chaotic act. Torturing him for information would be an evil act. But killing him after the party's done interrogating him? Not evil, especially if you look at the act as an execution of a criminal. I'd say it'd be more evil to let him go without supervision. There's plenty of evidence in his tower that he's up to no good; remember that creating undead is an evil act.
Lawful characters should balk at executing Filge more than good characters should. The best solution to the Filge Problem for a Lawful character is to turn him over to the authorities, which in Diamond Lake probably means the garrison.
The PCs are not the authorities or even agents of the garrison, they are free agents. So killing a man in Diamond Lake is murder. Like it or not Orcs, Goblins, Ogres kill all of them you want. But kill a civilized PERSON, be it gnome, human or elf, then the act would be seen in society as murder.
Diamond Lake is a frontier town, not unlike the wild west. With a corrupt Sheriff. Does that mean killing an outlaw is justice? No it's the act of vigilantes.The best westerns involve good people who are forced to fight and take down the bad guys, rather than kill the bad guy so he won't escape later or because they have no confidence in the legal system.
If the adventure is played as written Filge is an impediment, a right nasty wanker, but still the worst crime most can prove is grave robbing.
An 'eye for an eye' just leaves everyone blind at the end of the day.
MattW, your example of western movies is not applicable to the AOW setting. In just about every western I've seen, the whole premise of the movie is that it takes place in a LAWLESS town, city, etc. Diamond Lake is a LAWFUL society, though not necessarily a GOOD one (in fact, in D&D terms, it is probably a Lawful Evil town).
The confusion here stems from the difference between Law vs. Chaos and Good vs. Evil. In D&D, killing a sentient being is not necessarily an evil act on the moral alignment axis. Depending on the laws of the area in which the killing took place, it may or may not be an unlawful act.
On the moral alignment axis, killing an orc is just as wrong as killing an elf, human, gnome, etc. They are all sentient thinking beings. The example you listed as society labeling it murder is a Law/Chaos thing, not good or evil.
The bottom line for this debate all boils down to what the PCs motivations were in killing Filge. If they did it for expediency's sake, then it is an evil act. If they did it to stop his future evil, just as they would for a rampaging undead creature, then it is not an evil act, but probably is an unlawful one.
Weeelll... except that an accepted surrender is essentially agreeing with his request to "please, don't kill me, I know I'm a bad man... I'll give you info if you spare my life!"
You're essentially saying that dishonesty is evil. While honesty certainly makes things more fair, I don't think it has anything to do with right and wrong. There are times when it is good to be honest, and times when honesty might be detrimental to the cause of good. Are you telling me if a good-aligned character promised to aid the thieves guild if they released him that you would call the character evil for running away as soon as he'd escaped their clutches because he didn't follow through with his promise? What if the thieves guild had wanted him to assassinate a good ruler?
This clearly belongs in the realm of law vs. chaos. I think the reason this issue gets convoluted so much is because the paladin code does not allow them to lie, but that's because they are supposed to fight with honor, and bluffing is a dishonorable tactic. It's not because telling the truth is always the morally right thing to do. In fact, it usually gets paladins in trouble, which certainly hampers their progression in the fight against evil.
In one campaign I play a CG elf warpriest of Corellon. He will viciously slaughter almost any orc he meets. In his mind, and particularly according to his culture, there is no redemption for such creatures. He has executed numerous orc prisoners after extracting information from them. He views it as the execution of a war criminal, not backing out of a deal. He's going to kill them whether they tell him something or not. If lying to an orc about sparing his life will get him to tell my character what he wants to know, it results in information that is useful for the cause of good and a dead orc (also a good thing). He also once cut off the fingers of a spellcaster who had tried to rob him. The way he sees it, the other guy forfeited his right to his fingers when he decided to use them to try to harm others and he can't stomach the idea that a local guard would let him get off with a slap on the wrist and a fine. These aren't my personal beliefs for how things should be handled, but I think they are quite in line for how a CG character would act.
That's one of the reasons that I like this adventure path so much. At the outset it's hard to play a LG Paladin, but there are extremely good roleplaying opportunities here. In a really dark setting, where the "law" isn't really all that "just"... what's a Paladin to do?
There are certain situations in which I'd allow a paladin to execute a prisoner. For instance the paladin could say "You are evil and you deserve execution for your crimes. I shall mete out the punishment, but before you die, I offer you the chance to atone by admitting all you have done and providing me with the information I need to find your accomplices. Then perhaps your soul will find rest." This paladin is very straightforward and makes his intentions plain. Now this would still be unbecoming of a paladin because there is a legitimate authority in Diamond Lake that should dispense justice. But suppose the paladin believes the authority to be not so legitimate. Suppose the paladin has evidence Lanod Neff has only maintained power by strong-arming his competitors and nay-sayers out of the picture and that the garrison is essentially powerless to act against him. In this case, the paladin knows true justice would not be done by turning over Filge to the "authorities" and I would rule execution is perfectly allowable, perhaps not preferable, but allowable.
Filge: B-b-b-but I don't want to die!
LG: Then you should not have killed. *hack*
A CG character would not consider any of that as reasons for or against killing Filge. What the CG character promises is immaterial. All that matters is what Filge has done, and for that he deserves to die. If lying is necessary to coax sensitive information out of him, the ends justify the means.
Filge: B-b-b-but you promised you'd let me live if I told you all I know!
CG: I lied. *hack*
Diamond Lake is a frontier town, not unlike the wild west. With a corrupt Sheriff. Does that mean killing an outlaw is justice? No it's the act of vigilantes.
The best westerns involve good people who are forced to fight and take down the bad guys, rather than kill the bad guy so he won't escape later or because they have no confidence in the legal system.
If the adventure is played as written Filge is an impediment, a right nasty wanker, but still the worst crime most can prove is grave robbing.
An 'eye for an eye' just leaves everyone blind at the end of the day.
I'm guessing you didn't like Boondock Saints.
MattW, your example of western movies is not applicable to the AOW setting. In just about every western I've seen, the whole premise of the movie is that it takes place in a LAWLESS town, city, etc. Diamond Lake is a LAWFUL society, though not necessarily a GOOD one (in fact, in D&D terms, it is probably a Lawful Evil town).
The confusion here stems from the difference between Law vs. Chaos and Good vs. Evil. In D&D, killing a sentient being is not necessarily an evil act on the moral alignment axis. Depending on the laws of the area in which the killing took place, it may or may not be an unlawful act.
On the moral alignment axis, killing an orc is just as wrong as killing an elf, human, gnome, etc. They are all sentient thinking beings. The example you listed as society labeling it murder is a Law/Chaos thing, not good or evil.
The bottom line for this debate all boils down to what the PCs motivations were in killing Filge. If they did it for expediency's sake, then it is an evil act. If they did it to stop his future evil, just as they would for a rampaging undead creature, then it is not an evil act, but probably is an unlawful one.
In the opening description of Diamond Lake from the first AoW installment in Dungeon a bunch of thugs are kicking hell out of a halfling. Does the Sheriff come to protect him? Nope. Is there a law against assault in Diamond Lake, probably, if you wealthy enough to afford the Sheriffs protection. I'll concede the alignment of the town is LE-NN, the true neutral comes from the uncaring populace.
Murder can be a ethical dilemma (i.e. law) but mostly it is a moral dilemma (good). See page 104 of the PH. It says there that "evil" folks kill without qualms if doing so is convienient. Sounds like the case in point at the start of this thread.
I'm guessing you didn't like Boondock Saints.Diamond Lake is a frontier town, not unlike the wild west. With a corrupt Sheriff. Does that mean killing an outlaw is justice? No it's the act of vigilantes.
The best westerns involve good people who are forced to fight and take down the bad guys, rather than kill the bad guy so he won't escape later or because they have no confidence in the legal system.
If the adventure is played as written Filge is an impediment, a right nasty wanker, but still the worst crime most can prove is grave robbing.
An 'eye for an eye' just leaves everyone blind at the end of the day.
Western novel? I'm more into the movies myself.
The Clint Eastwood westerns such as 'Fistful of Dollars' is a good example of a NN guy playing off two evil competitors for profit.'The Magnificent Seven' is an example of true altruism. It was set in a Mexican town beset by Bandits. Was the Mexican government of the 1900s a lawful society? Yes and no, probably in the larger population centers, surely not in the hinterlands. Not unlike Diamond Lake.
The dilemma of what to do with prisoners, reminds me of the WW2 movie 'The Guns of Navarone'. If you dont know it: a small group are sent into an occupied part of Greece to blow up some Nazi naval guns that threaten shipping. They find out that one of the local guides (a young woman) is a spy. Their dilemma: they can't take her with them, and they can't leave her behind, because either way she will compromise the mission. But, (not being ruthless Nazi's!) they rather balk at the idea of killing an unarmed woman. Fortunately for the good guys, the other (female) guide shoots her - effectively saving them the decision. In D&D terms, a tough decision (maybe) for a paladin!
In Filge's case it doesnt really apply as there are authorities to hand him to. Still in my campaign he HAD raised the corpse one of the party as a zombie so the had plenty reason to hate him. I just thought killing him after accepting his surrender was 'bad form'!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're essentially saying that dishonesty is evil. While honesty certainly makes things more fair, I don't think it has anything to do with right and wrong.
While I will readily agree that complete honesty is not always a good thing, and sometimes can in fact lead to evil, it most certainly has "something to do" with right and wrong. Truth does have more to do with the "lawful" axis, most of the time, but it is also strongly mediated by the good-vs-evil axis. The lie here - the broken agreement - is not a simple matter of not returning an item or not setting someone free. The lie is about intentionally killing someone after you've agreed not to... a life-and-death issue that certainly falls in the good-vs-evil debate.
Even if you disagree with me, the PH clearly states that " 'Good' imples altruism, a respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." Also, that " 'Evil' implies hurting hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."
When people concentrate too much on telling the truth "no matter what", they are being naive (and perhaps even juvenile) in their thinking.
...Are you telling me if a good-aligned character promised to aid the thieves guild if they released him that you would call the character evil for running away as soon as he'd escaped their clutches because he didn't follow through with his promise? What if the thieves guild had wanted him to assassinate a good ruler?
No, I'm not telling you anything of the sort. You're right when you say that lies have more to do with the law-vs-chaos axis. But what I am saying is that the good-vs-evil axis cannot be ignored whenever killing or harming others is involved. To ignore that is to ignore half of the question. Probably the more important part.
This clearly belongs in the realm of law vs. chaos. I think the reason this issue gets convoluted so much is because the paladin code does not allow them to lie, but that's because they are supposed to fight with honor, and bluffing is a dishonorable tactic. It's not because telling the truth is always the morally right thing to do. In fact, it usually gets paladins in trouble, which certainly hampers their progression in the fight against evil.
This question does not *solely* belong in the realm of law-vs-chaos for this very reason. Paladins must tell the truth most of the time primarily because they are dedicated to both law and good. But I would not cause a Paladin to alignment-shift if they told a little white lie in order to protect someone... unless they started lying all the time (but in doing so, I would question of their dedication to "law", not goodness). Lawful characters *should not* lie, but Good characters *must not* murder (not "not kill", but "not murder"). No paladin can tell the truth all the time, or keep their word all the time, or (as someone else said a long time ago) they're "Lawful Stupid" not "Lawful Good".
In one campaign I play a CG elf warpriest of Corellon. He will viciously slaughter almost any orc he meets. In his mind, and particularly according to his culture, there is no redemption for such creatures. He has executed numerous orc prisoners after extracting information from them. He views it as the execution of a war criminal, not backing out of a deal. He's going to kill them whether they tell him something or not. If lying to an orc about sparing his life will get him to tell my character what he wants to know, it results in information that is useful for the cause of good and a dead orc (also a good thing). He also once cut off the fingers of a spellcaster who had tried to rob him. The way he sees it, the other guy forfeited his right to his fingers when he decided to use them...
I think I'll have to disagree with you here... and you might call this splitting hairs, but what would Corellon do? ;-) You have called your character vicious, and as someone who engages in slaughter. This doesn't seem very Corellon-like, nor particularly "elvish" IMO. You didn't call it "defending against and killing an attacker" but rather "vicious slaughter" against anyone of a specific race. This is certainly morally different (enjoying the killing because the race of the foe "justifies" it for you). You also say above that he has taken the fingers of a mage who tried to rob him. While I'll agree that these acts appear to be Chaotic in the sense that they are applying a personal code of justice, I honestly have a hard time seeing how executing war criminals, viciously slaughtering orcs (concentrate on the "vicious slaughter" part, not the "orc" part), and having an "hand-for-a-loaf-of-bread" approach to justice can be defended as "Good".
Again, from the PH (p. 104 in 3.5), being "Good" is about having compassion, being altruistic, having a respect for life, and "being kind and benevolent" (p. 105). Just because the orcs are largely "not a Good-aligned race" doesn't give one a reason to "viciously slaughter" them; viciousness implies the enjoyment of another's suffering, which according to the PH would be... Evil. Given this, I can't help but view "being Good" as having not only good final actions but also good feelings and intentions toward other sentient beings. Please help me try to see the "Good" in your CG character as you've described above. If anything, to me, your character seems more Chaotic Neutral as described.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are certain situations in which I'd allow a paladin to execute a prisoner. For instance the paladin could say "You are evil and you deserve execution for your crimes. I shall mete out the punishment, but before you die, I offer you the chance to atone by admitting all you have done and providing me with the information I need to find your accomplices. Then perhaps your soul will find rest."
Not in my book, I'm afraid. How are executions ever heroic? It's true that a Paladin hates to see the guilty go unpunished, but that's a far cry from carrying out someone's execution. Paladins are supposed to have all of their special divine powers because there is something special about their view of being Lawful Good. As you've said before, there's play in every alignment and no one can ever act consistently 100% of the time. But a Paladin executing a prisoner? Not in my games, I'm afraid. Leave the executions to someone Lawful Neutral.
This paladin is very straightforward and makes his intentions plain. Now this would still be unbecoming of a paladin because there is a legitimate authority in Diamond Lake that should dispense justice. But suppose the paladin believes the authority to be not so legitimate. Suppose the paladin has evidence Lanod Neff has only maintained power by strong-arming his competitors and nay-sayers out of the picture and that the garrison is essentially powerless to act against him. In this case, the paladin knows true justice would not be done by turning over Filge to the "authorities" and I would rule execution is perfectly allowable, perhaps not preferable, but allowable.
The Paladin's duty here isn't to execute a prisoner because they're the most "noble and just" in town. Their duty is to slap the others in the Church out of their complacency (particularly the Paladin Melinde... isn't that her name?) and right the injustices s/he sees in the town. In fact, this would make nice side quest with lots of roleplaying opportunities for a Paladin PC. But *not* taking executions and "justice" into their own hand. That's Conan-like, not Paladin-like.
Filge: B-b-b-but I don't want to die!
LG: Then you should not have killed. *hack*A CG character would not consider any of that as reasons for or against killing Filge. What the CG character promises is immaterial. All that matters is what Filge has done, and for that he deserves to die. If lying is necessary to coax sensitive information out of him, the ends justify the means.
Filge: B-b-b-but you promised you'd let me live if I told you all I know!
CG: I lied. *hack*
No no... I'll again have to disagree with all of the above. LG characters simply don't take this approach to lying about killing. It's an allowable stretch to say that they'd lie about setting the person free, but not about killing them.
Nor does the end justify the means for "chaotic good" characters. Where is the kindness, benevolence, and general respect for sentient life that's part of being "Good"? IMO, you don't seem to be considering how the "goodness" of an action, particularly with respect to life-and-death matters, will always attenuate the law-vs-chaos axis.
Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness. Alignmnet is not subjective in D&D. Good, evil, law, and chaos are tangible and very real forces. It is an evil act to slaughter an orc tribe just because they are all CE, unless they have harmed other first, and show no sign of repentance. If any surrender, they must be afforded safety, and should preferably be imprisoned, not executed, unless it was clear that such a thing could easily bring more evil than simply killing them.
Accepting Filge's surrender and then killing him is chaotic and evil. A LG character should have him imprisoned by the watch, unless he is aware of the corruption. If that is the case, it is his duty to take him to the Hieroneans. A paladin doesn't have to follow bad laws- that's the good aspect of the LG alignment. A chaotic character should simply imprison him however they see fit, but not kill him, again, until it became clear that such a thing stood a high chance of causing more death than simple execution.
One can commit acts invariably associated with an aligment without automatically shifting towards that alignment, however. It takes repetition of such actions, with a reasonable mindest of conforming to an alignment, to cause a shift. Killing a known villain of indesputable evil without going through the proper authorities is chaotic, but doesn't automatically make the perpetrator such. Living a lifestyle that way would. Poisoning a town's water supply due to insanity and a belief that all the citizens are monsters is evil, as there is no real foundation for the act. The insane person is not neccessarily evil because of this one act. Nor is someone tricked into performing such an act by an evil power. Even repetition of such things doesn't make the person evil, since he lacked the intent to do, and knowledge of, evil. However, it very well may shift them from good to neutral.
Is killing Filge after he surrenders evil? Yes, it's CE. Does that make the characters more evil? Not really. The intent and circumstances are fairly clear, and while it wasn't the best option they had, it was understandable.
As one of my npcs put it, upon Filge's capture....
"We'll make sure that he has a fair trial, then we'll hang him."
Basically, this guy's guilty as heck, and deserves to die. The evidence is overwhelming. However, we'll go through the motions to satisfy everyone that things are the way they are, then we'll do what is required.
Squid
In one campaign I play a CG elf warpriest of Corellon. He will viciously slaughter almost any orc he meets. In his mind, and particularly according to his culture, there is no redemption for such creatures. He has executed numerous orc prisoners after extracting information from them. He views it as the execution of a war criminal, not backing out of a deal. He's going to kill them whether they tell him something or not. If lying to an orc about sparing his life will get him to tell my character what he wants to know, it results in information that is useful for the cause of good and a dead orc (also a good thing). He also once cut off the fingers of a spellcaster who had tried to rob him. The way he sees it, the other guy forfeited his right to his fingers when he decided to use them...I think I'll have to disagree with you here... and you might call this splitting hairs, but what would Corellon do? ;-) You have called your character vicious, and as someone who engages in slaughter. This doesn't seem very Corellon-like, nor particularly "elvish" IMO. You didn't call it "defending against and killing an attacker" but rather "vicious slaughter" against anyone of a specific race. This is certainly morally different (enjoying the killing because the race of the foe "justifies" it for you). You also say above that he has taken the fingers of a mage who tried to rob him. While I'll agree that these acts appear to be Chaotic in the sense that they are applying a personal code of justice, I honestly have a hard time seeing how executing war criminals, viciously slaughtering orcs (concentrate on the "vicious slaughter" part, not the "orc" part), and having an "hand-for-a-loaf-of-bread" approach to justice can be defended as "Good".
Again, from the PH (p. 104 in 3.5), being "Good" is about having compassion, being altruistic, having a respect for life, and "being kind and benevolent" (p. 105). Just because the orcs are largely "not a Good-aligned race" doesn't give one a reason to "viciously slaughter" them; viciousness implies the enjoyment of another's suffering, which according to the PH would be... Evil. Given this, I can't help but view "being Good" as having not only good final actions but also good feelings and intentions toward other sentient beings. Please help me try to see the "Good" in your CG character as you've described above. If anything, to me, your character seems more Chaotic Neutral as described.
Actually, your more correct than you realize. The character has experienced quite a development in his outlook throughout his adventuring years. Originally, I would have described him as Chaotic Good with Chaotic Neutral tendencies. He wasn't blood-thirsty and he didn't relish in the act of killing itself, but he felt a satisfaction knowing the sons of Gruumsh were being culled and didn't restrain himself from it. However, as he has matured from 1st-level to 9th, he has seen the results of actions like his as well as experiencing the true ramifications of chaos and evil in the world and it has started to harrow his thoughts. Now he is Chaotic Good with Neutral Good tendencies. He is at least content now to take prisoners and no longer does he capriciously use his blade to speak for him. However, he has always been a defender of innocents, he has always selflessly served both elven and non-elven peoples in need, he has always donated generously of his funds to charitable causes. Hence there was never any question that the Good component is most definitely justified.
To understand the racial enmity, you must understand that Corellon and Gruumsh are eternal enemies. Therefore to be a true priest of the Seldarine (other than Lolth) an elf really cannot accept the fact that orcs are ever going redeem themselves. (Whether the elves are correct about that is another subject entirely.) To believe otherwise is certain heresy since it is contradictory to an eternity of struggle between the Protector of the Elves and One Eye.
...How are executions ever heroic? It's true that a Paladin hates to see the guilty go unpunished, but that's a far cry from carrying out someone's execution...
When faced with the choice of letting an evil character go to continue to commit evil in the world and ending the life of a thoroughly evil character so that other good people may be spared, I think the paladin is perfectly within his code to choose execution. This shouldn't be the kind of question a paladin considers daily however. It should be reserved for the vilest of offenders, like Filge. The high priests of the temples of the Ebon Triad would also fall under this category.
The Paladin's duty here isn't to execute a prisoner because they're the most "noble and just" in town. Their duty is to slap the others in the Church out of their complacency (particularly the Paladin Melinde... isn't that her name?) and right the injustices s/he sees in the town. In fact, this would make nice side quest with lots of roleplaying...
Ah, so the OTHER paladin is free to go about and right injustices, but the PC paladin has to let "the authorities" take care of justice. It's crystal clear now. Thanks.
Facetiousness aside, if you don't ever allow a PC paladin to serve up justice to evil, there is really no fun in playing a paladin. It would be eternally frustrating to play a paladin from level 1 to 20 and always having to fight the same bad guys because every time you defeat them you must take them alive and turn them in to some corrupt authority that is going to let them off easy. Sometimes the paladin IS AUTHORITY, the authority that is only granted to champions of the powers of law and good. When a paladin is adventuring in a place where evil and lawlessness are rampant, he has a duty to be a beacon of justice himself and carry out his god's wishes because the establishment certainly won't.
Actually, your more correct than you realize. (...) However, he has always been a defender of innocents, he has always selflessly served both elven and non-elven peoples in need, he has always donated generously of his funds to charitable causes. Hence there was never any question that the Good component is most definitely justified.
Good for your PC, I suppose. I was merely commenting on the information that you'd given to that point (i.e., the "vicious slaughter" and chopping off the fingers of thieves), since you were using this as an example of a "good" PC.
To understand the racial enmity, you must understand that Corellon and Gruumsh are eternal enemies. Therefore...
Thanks, I'm covered on the Corellon vs. Gruumsh story. I just think we have very different perspectives on what the elves "must" believe in this setting, and perhaps quite a few other things as well. And that's fine.
...Ah, so the OTHER paladin is free to go about and right injustices, but the PC paladin has to let "the authorities" take care of justice. It's crystal clear now. Thanks.
If you go back and read what I wrote very carefully, I was actually suggesting that the other Paladin has been sitting on her backside and not doing anything (or anything particularly obvious) about fighting the injustice and corruption in town. And that the PC Paladin should confront *them* on their inaction. I felt that this would make a nice side-story for a PC Paladin - to confront the Church (and her) on what seems to be their "oversights" regarding the mine managers and the Sheriff's office.
If you go back and read what I wrote very carefully, I was actually suggesting that the other Paladin has been sitting on her backside and not doing anything (or anything particularly obvious) about fighting the injustice and corruption in town. And that the PC Paladin should confront *them* on their inaction. I felt that this would make a nice side-story for a PC Paladin - to confront the Church (and her) on what seems to be their "oversights" regarding the mine managers and the Sheriff's office.
That's wonderfully bureaucratic. It seems to me like the paladin would get a lot more done if he took matters into his own hands. I mean, if everyone has to report to someone else, ultimately, no one can really do everything. If the PC paladin turns Filge into the garrison, the garrison is subservient to the City of Greyhawk so they shouldn't technically be able to do anything about it either.
There's a reason a paladin is given these supernatural powers, it is because the paladin's god, or some other force, has authorized the paladin as a divine agent for their will. Allowing the paladin to carry out his divine patron's will sometimes is what makes the class an interesting option. It isn't any fun for a player if the DM makes him turn the bad guys in to someone else all the time. Sometimes, the DM needs to force the paladin to make the decision whether to punish or have mercy. That's part of the challenge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's wonderfully bureaucratic. It seems to me like the paladin would get a lot more done if he took matters into his own hands. I mean, if everyone has to report to someone else, ultimately, no one can really do everything. If the PC paladin turns Filge into the garrison, the garrison is subservient to the City of Greyhawk so they shouldn't technically be able to do anything about it either.
Law is often bureaucratic. Being a paladin does not give a PC a license to be like "Judge Dredd".
There's a reason a paladin is given these supernatural powers, it is because the paladin's god, or some other force, has authorized the paladin as a divine agent for their will. Allowing the paladin to carry out his divine patron's will sometimes is what makes the class an interesting option. It isn't any fun for a player if the DM makes him turn the bad guys in to someone else all the time. Sometimes, the DM needs to force the paladin to make the decision whether to punish or have mercy. That's part of the challenge.
The paladin, however, must act within the bounds of both law and good while they are "carrying out the will" of their divine patron. Otherwise all of those special powers are lost. Getting back to the original question of the thread, no paladin (who is, of course, both lawful and good) should accept Filge's surrender and then summarily execute him after questioning. Yes, paladins must often work with the bureaucracy at hand, or they must seek to right injustices they see within that bureaucracy.