OK, this is a topic which can be discussed to no end, so I'll take to examples from my current campaign.
Example 1: Heroes have defeated a bunch of hobgoblins, and two surrendered. They refused to cooperate during interrogation, so the druid killed one with a Call Lightning. That made the other talk. Druid in question is True Neutral.
Example 2: The rogue (CN) is grappling a lizardfolk who tries to escape. The lizardfolk surrenders to the rogue (they both speak draconic). The druid arrives. The rogue tells the druid "Kill him", and doesn't tell him he has surrendered. The druid slashes him with a scimitar.
My question is, is killing surrendered enemies evil? Or is it just chaotic? Does the fact that these two were "monstrous" humanoids mitigate the circumstances? I don't really think the CN rogue was out of line, but the N druid is maybe starting to garner some chaotic traits.
And what about good party members witnessing this? In my opinion, good characters should not allow captured enemies to be killed (unless they are devils or demons, that is).
Thoughts?
OK, this is a topic which can be discussed to no end, so I'll take to examples from my current campaign.
Example 1: Heroes have defeated a bunch of hobgoblins, and two surrendered. They refused to cooperate during interrogation, so the druid killed one with a Call Lightning. That made the other talk. Druid in question is True Neutral.
Example 2: The rogue (CN) is grappling a lizardfolk who tries to escape. The lizardfolk surrenders to the rogue (they both speak draconic). The druid arrives. The rogue tells the druid "Kill him", and doesn't tell him he has surrendered. The druid slashes him with a scimitar.
My question is, is killing surrendered enemies evil? Or is it just chaotic? Does the fact that these two were "monstrous" humanoids mitigate the circumstances? I don't really think the CN rogue was out of line, but the N druid is maybe starting to garner some chaotic traits.
And what about good party members witnessing this? In my opinion, good characters should not allow captured enemies to be killed (unless they are devils or demons, that is).
Thoughts?
Killing prisoners that have surrendered is an evil act. I think the Book of Exalted deeds is quite clear on that topic, even if they don't wish to cooperate.
And it doesn't matter if their subtype reads 'humanoid' or 'monstrous humanoid' its the fact that they're capable of surrendering that matters. And on the same note, tricking someone else into killing a prisoner is an evil act, you could say the druid is in the clear because he didn't know.(unless the signs were obvious that the lizardfolk surrendered)
Example 1: Heroes have defeated a bunch of hobgoblins, and two surrendered. They refused to cooperate during interrogation, so the druid killed one with a Call Lightning. That made the other talk. Druid in question is True Neutral.
If he intended to kill then yes that is evil, but if he meant just to 'soften' him up a bit with lightning I'd say the act was questionable. I would not make the druid change his alignment, but would caution him (perhaps in the form of a sleepless night and guilt) that he should not make it a habit.
Example 2: The rogue (CN) is grappling a lizardfolk who tries to escape. The lizardfolk surrenders to the rogue (they both speak draconic). The druid arrives. The rogue tells the druid "Kill him", and doesn't tell him he has surrendered. The druid slashes him with a scimitar.
If the lizardfolk was still being held by the rogue when the druid arrives then he is attacking someone who helpless and again the act is tending towards evil.
And what about good party members witnessing this? In my opinion, good characters should not allow captured enemies to be killed (unless they are devils or demons, that is).
Good characters should certainly not allow the murder of prisoners, and killing an unarmed and defenceless enemy is murder.
The killing of helpless devils and demons may not be truly an evil act, but it's not a good act either. If anything the character is becoming more like the creature he despises if he uses their methods.
The hobgoblin who was struck had 0 hp left, a fact that was clearly stated. The lizardfolk who was grappled was fleeing at the time. Had it been a life-or-death struggle with the boss monster, than it would have been ok. But the rogue obviously had control, and the lizardfolk had nowhere to go.
The hobgoblin who was struck had 0 hp left, a fact that was clearly stated. The lizardfolk who was grappled was fleeing at the time. Had it been a life-or-death struggle with the boss monster, than it would have been ok. But the rogue obviously had control, and the lizardfolk had nowhere to go.
Yeah, I would say both were evil acts.
Bleh. This is (usually) a distasteful topic...
The problem is, there are two fundamental ways to look at Evil Acts.
First, there is the Lucas/Star Wars way; Doing Evil (using Dark Side powers) is Evil no matter what (always receive Dark Side points).
Then there is the way that befits us CN people better, where as the intention is the important factor.
Neither way is right or wrong in and of itself.
Your players actions do tend towards evil.
But there is something else to consider. How to interpret their characters alignment. They are both Neutral with regard to Good/Evil. From a very mechanical view of things, they almost have to do a few Evil Acts to balance out all of their Good Deeds to remain Neutral. Otherwise, they would shift towards Good alignment. (Which, oddly enough, not many GM's seem to enforce that slide very much...)
If you are wondering if you should be pushing for an alignment change - weigh the Evil Acts against the Good Deeds. That is my suggestion.
I think that chaotic characters tend to act on impulse, whereas lawfuls are more likely to think things out before acting. A chaotic character might be more prone to making hasty decisions that have negative repercussions (although lawful types can miss something crucial in their planning and screw up big time, too). If you are tracking alignment shift, consider bigger swings for calculated evil over harm caused by thoughtlessness.
Bleh. This is (usually) a distasteful topic...
The problem is, there are two fundamental ways to look at Evil Acts.
First, there is the Lucas/Star Wars way; Doing Evil (using Dark Side powers) is Evil no matter what (always receive Dark Side points).
Then there is the way that befits us CN people better, where as the intention is the important factor.Neither way is right or wrong in and of itself.
Your players actions do tend towards evil.
But there is something else to consider. How to interpret their characters alignment. They are both Neutral with regard to Good/Evil. From a very mechanical view of things, they almost have to do a few Evil Acts to balance out all of their Good Deeds to remain Neutral. Otherwise, they would shift towards Good alignment. (Which, oddly enough, not many GM's seem to enforce that slide very much...)
If you are wondering if you should be pushing for an alignment change - weigh the Evil Acts against the Good Deeds. That is my suggestion.
Well, I guess I see neutral in a different way. I see Neutral (in regards to good/evil) as no so much a balance between the two but more of an irrelevance. For a true neutral character good and evil don't exist or are irrelevant, they're not a consideration. The chaotic neutral character wouldn't think about or consider good versus evil as long as he/she has the freedom to do what they want. I also don't happen to believe that true neutral is even really possible and chaotic neutral is just extreme selfishness which pretty always leads to evil in the end anyway so I don't usually allow either (that and the people who choose those alignments usually do so with the intention of being difficult and pains in the rear-end).
But there is something else to consider. How to interpret their characters alignment. They are both Neutral with regard to Good/Evil. From a very mechanical view of things, they almost have to do a few Evil Acts to balance out all of their Good Deeds to remain Neutral. Otherwise, they would shift towards Good alignment. (Which, oddly enough, not many GM's seem to enforce that slide very much...)
Heh, I was actually thinking about that myself. How many DM's have told their players: "Now, you better stop acting so damn good, or you'd lose your Blackguard abilities!"
If you are wondering if you should be pushing for an alignment change - weigh the Evil Acts against the Good Deeds. That is my suggestion.
Well, I did consider that as well, but then again, I don't see Neutral alignment as someone who does an equal amount of good and evil actions. I see neutral as an alignment on its own, neither good nor evil. To summarize it in short:
Good characters help people who need help without demanding money. They don't kill helpless prisoners.
Neutral characters needs a motivator for doing something. Putting himself at unneccessary risk without compensation of some sort. In my example, the neutral druid helps protect a vale from an invading horde because he is afraid it will upset the balance. The CN rogue always asks for money.
Evil characters kill at their own behest, be it helpless prisoners, other evil humanoids or whatever.
Well evil acts really depend on how you look at it, but by D&D standards they tend to make them very cut and dry to support the mechanics. I have never been a fan of the idea that nuetral characters can do purely evil acts as long as they do an equavalent amount of good deeds. A lot of it has to intent. In most cases killing a helpless creature is an evil act. Typically what Neutral characters balance are things that are "lesser" evil such as stealing, lieing and the other similar acts.
Example 1: Definately an evil act. Not only was the creature helpless but using Call Lightning seems a little excessive as a killing method compared to say a Coup de Grace (yeah I probably didn't spell it right) with a dagger to "humanly" kill it.
Example 2: A little more gray to me. The druid didn't know and presumably was helping/saving the rogue who was grappling for his life. The Rogue it really depends on his though process. IF the lizardfolk did totally give up on the grapple as in not resisting the Rogue might has assumed that it was lieing so he still believed he was in a life or death situation. If the lizardfolk did give up and the Rogue kept the grapple for appearances so he could convince the Druid to kill it.
Now, now people...
I wasn't suggesting the "correct" way to do things.
Only pointing out the pure mechanical way to look at things.
Most games are set out with Good Deeds as the outcome. To use stereotypes; rescue princesses, defeat Evil Dragons / Wizards etc.
Speaking strictly mechanically, a Neutral character completing those games without doing any Evil Acts should end up being a Good character by virtue of enforced Alignment shift. That is all I was pointing out.
Now, the "ugly" part comes about by what I notice by most GMs.
Good Deeds can be mitigated by intentions, but Evil Acts cannot.
Trellian is showing signs of that already.
Saving the kingdom is a Good Deed, unless you demand payment. Killing a helpless Evil Wizard is an Evil Act, even if it saves the kingdom.
It is a double standard.
And if that is how you wish to run your games, please feel free to. I am in no position to tell you it is wrong. However, have the courtesy to tell your players ahead of time that is how their characters will be judged. Not every person thinks that is the correct way to handle Alignment Shifts.
Good vs Evil and their effects on alignment.
Easy enough just break down an act and see how it fits with in the alignment.
Intent: What was it that the character thought they would accomplish? (35% weight of act)
Actual Effect: What actually happened? (65% weight of act)
Alignment: How does that interact with their alignment? (Keep in mind those classes that have act restrictions to keeping their powers.)
Note: Neutral alignment can mean that they do not care for (or pay attention to) said battle (law vs chaos, good vs evil). If they are purposely "balancing" their good vs evil acts (or law vs chaos) then they are missing the point.
LN: law or personal code above all else
NG: good above all else (aka helping others above all else)
NE: Evil above all else (also known as yourself above all else)
CN: personal freedom above all else (screw the 'man')
True N: either the 'balancer' (balance the world, aka going with the underdog or themselves in the world, aka alignment neutral footprint) or the meanderer (wandering here and there down different moral paths, aka the alignment lazy)
If by following these alignments then they accomplish 10 acts in a row towards one or the other side of neutral so what. As long as when, say a CN, person has the choice between personal freedom and good or non-personal freedom and evil (but say monetary gain) they chose the one that has the key that fits their alignment (personal freedom). Now if both choices offer personal freedom then look for an underlining pattern to their motives not a short term pattern. (Rolling 18 strength does not mean your d6 only rolls 6's.)
|
I always thought CN characters where psychopaths that could esily befriend and help people one minute then cut them up and eat them a few minutes later. That description seems to fit the rogues actions he accepted surrender then told another to blast him.... makes perfect sense to me.
In all the games Ive played monstrous humanoids like orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ect where all cancerous blights cursed upon the world in wich they lived with no other purpose than to pillage, plunder, and rape the lands and peaceful communities of other races. So if LG Paladin was to wonder across an entire village of hobgoblins wether they where defenseless or not didnt matter. It just wasnt his right slaughter the entire village but his duty to "PURIFY" the world from the existance of such abominations eve if it meant killing females and small childrens.
So if LG Paladin was to wonder across an entire village of hobgoblins wether they where defenseless or not didnt matter. It just wasnt his right slaughter the entire village but his duty to "PURIFY" the world from the existance of such abominations eve if it meant killing females and small childrens.
And thus Anakin Skywalker the Paladin murdered the men women and children in the Tuskan Raider village and became Darth Vader the Blackguard
And thus Anakin Skywalker the Paladin murdered the men women and children in the Tuskan Raider village and became Darth Vader the Blackguard
But you must admit he was much cooler. And at least blackguards don't whine, they just keep their traps shut. ;P
|
|
Anakin Skywalker lashed out in an angry vengence going against the teachings of the jedi masters and his own personal belief.
A Paladin would be following the teachings of his faith. Buring out the wicked would be his lawful duty in wich he would take great pride. In fact if the paladin where to pass by the village of hobgoblins without destroying it, and then found out a few weeks later that the very same village he spared mounted an attack on a nearby halfling village would crush the paladins spirit. And probably would be grounds for revokeing that paladins status and strip away all his paladin abilities.
of course this is just my opinion.
Fair enough. I was merely making a comparison.
But I think of a paladin as a religious zealot.
Their philiosophy of destroying evil could be compared to some holy wars in the real world.
And the ones that conduct such wars are considered heroes by their own people and xenophobic murderers by the victims.
But that is just my opinion.
My take on the issue is this:
Neutral doesn't do Evil, but it doesn't do Good, either. Neutral is the person who always finds a reason not to get involved. They have to be somewhere, they have this or that to think of, when really, they just don't care enough or don't want to risk something by taking a stand. Typically speaking, Neutral recognizes Evil for what it is and rejects it, rather than being ambivalent about it. But they don't do enough Good to qualify for the alignment.
I would view the "psychopathic" CN as really being CE. I don't think that alignments and actions cancel each other so cleanly, though they can overall. Someone interpreted CN as "sticking it to the 'man'," and I'd be inclined to agree with this. Also, the stereotypical frat boy. They do what they want, don't respect tradition or authority, but certainly aren't out to cause harm and would seek to avoid it if it came to their attention. Simultaneously, they probably don't think overly much about their actions, are prone to recklessness, aren't really out to accomplish anything positive, etc. They aren't Evil, but they aren't "Good," either.
As far as the double standard between Good and Evil, I think it should be harder to achieve and maintain Good status than Evil. Evil is easy- just do what you want a don't give a damn about others. Good is hard. Simply saving the kingdom isn't a Good act; if it was simply incidental to other purposes and actions, then it puts the "perpetrator" in no "risk" of becoming Good. However, "simply" (and intentionally) killing a helpless prisoner is Evil.
I can't see how the druid could have used call lightning on the hobgoblin, whom we are told he knew to be at 0 hp, without realizing this would be a lethal action. Thus, it is Evil. I wouldn't just give him a warning- I'd make him Neutral Evil if he didn't immediately take actions to "work off" what he'd done (which isn't as simple as giving candy to a baby, but requires real penance). He can redeem himself later (if he so chooses), but for now, he's dropped clearly into Evil. Make sure he understands this doesn't mean he has to change how he's acting to conform to his new alignment- they way he has already been acting took care of that. I recommend this shift because he essentially murdered someone, which is one of the most Evil acts possible.
Now, when we come to the rogue and the lizardfolk, I'd say that the druid is in the clear. A Good character would have sought out more justification for killing the lizardfolk, but if it truly appeared to the druid that his ally was in danger from a known foe, then killing the lizardfolk doesn't really risk changing his alignment. The rogue, however, has commited an Evil act, and tricked the druid into killing the lizardfolk for him. I'd also drop this character right to Evil; he's responsible for both the murder and for tricking another into cooperating in this Evil act. Again, the rogue can try to redeem himself later, but for the moment, he better hope no holy smites get cast on him, because he is Evil.
All just my opinion, of course.
The BoED says that the Death Penalty is not evil. So I fail to see how it could legitmately claim that killing a helpless person is evil, unless most people who get the death penalty aren't helpless when it happens (yeah right).
If it wouldn't have been evil to kill them before taking them prisoner, then it shouldn't be evil to kill them when they are a prisoner (unless it is done in a particular brutal and torturous way). Now it might be chaotic, especially if there was some kind of agreement made for the surrender, codes of war and all that. But a good ranger that kills an evil necromancer even after taking him prisoner isn't doing anything evil.
Now if the characters knew that really it was a misunderstanding that led to the fight (ok to defend yourself but not to go out of your way to kill them), and still killed the people when they had a good chance to not have to, then it would be evil. But killing a vicious individual is not necessarily evil just because they are helpless (is coup-de-grace evil? nope). Watch Firefly sometime, where Malcolm is trying to convince the right hand man of Mob boss guy that they just want to be left alone. What he did wasn't nice, but it wasn't necessarily evil either ("Got it, best thing for everyone!"
I think both acts were evil. That said maybe your druid should think about becoming Neutral Evil. If your cool with that as the DM. As far as the Good PCs, I would think they would object to the treatment of prisoners. I wouldn't hole it against them if they do not pick a fight with a party member over the situation. That just would be bad gamemenship.
|
You do realize that the Jedi were the greater of two evils, right? At least the Emperor was trying to make the galaxy a better place; the Jedi Council was only interested in personal power. (LE vs. CE)
8-)
To answer the OP: It depends on the morality of the world you're running.
Which is to say, "You're the DM; you get to decide."
My personal view is that once the surrender is accepted, the captor has a duty of care toward the prisoners. That said, I don't think it's unreasonable for a DM to take a utilitarian view toward good and evil. If the net good is increased by the action, the action is good. (This is decidedly not the default understanding of D&D.)
Whatever you decide to do, though, it should not be a mystery to your players. Disagreements are best avoided before they arise.
|
The BoED says that the Death Penalty is not evil. So I fail to see how it could legitmately claim that killing a helpless person is evil, unless most people who get the death penalty aren't helpless when it happens (yeah right).
I'm glad that someone has said this.
When you are out in the wilderness, I don't see how it is necessarily evil for the party to play "judge, jury, and executioner". It is certainly a far better option than either 1) letting them go, or 2) tying them up and dragging them along to the next town (where they are probably going to be killed anyway). We are not talking about Superman here.
The lightning might have been a bit overkill, but then he was trying to intimidate the other prisoner (which worked). Intelligent creatures would probably know that they were going to die anyway, so why divulge any information in the first place.
I would say torture is an evil act.
I do not feel that simply killing an evil creature is an evil act.
What the CN rogue did makes him an @$$ (IMO) but not necessarily "evil".
|
|
I can't see how the druid could have used call lightning on the hobgoblin, whom we are told he knew to be at 0 hp, without realizing this would be a lethal action. Thus, it is Evil.
Not sure how this equates. Every time a fighter swings his sword it is potentially lethal. Every fighter has the ability to either take a weapon that does subdual damage or use the weapon that he has to do subdual damage. Why is doing lethal damage on someone attacking you less 'evil'? What if they didn't surrender and they were at negative five -- is it 'good' to heal them back up? To what end? Or is it 'evil' to just let them die as they slowly bleed to death? If the hobgoblin was at zero hit points and someone called lightning down, I can pretty much say that the hobgoblin didn't feel a thing. He was dead before he even realized he was hit. Actually sounds pretty humane to me (although a bit dramatic).
I can't see how the druid could have used call lightning on the hobgoblin, whom we are told he knew to be at 0 hp, without realizing this would be a lethal action. Thus, it is Evil.Not sure how this equates. Every time a fighter swings his sword it is potentially lethal. Every fighter has the ability to either take a weapon that does subdual damage or use the weapon that he has to do subdual damage. Why is doing lethal damage on someone attacking you less 'evil'? What if they didn't surrender and they were at negative five -- is it 'good' to heal them back up? To what end? Or is it 'evil' to just let them die as they slowly bleed to death? If the hobgoblin was at zero hit points and someone called lightning down, I can pretty much say that the hobgoblin didn't feel a thing. He was dead before he even realized he was hit. Actually sounds pretty humane to me (although a bit dramatic).
It has nothing to do with lethal damage. It has to do with respect for life. The hobgoblins were (as I understand it) no longer a threat. It would have been different if they were still attacking- one is entitled to defend oneself (or others) by whatever means necessary. If the opponent leaves you with no reasonable option but lethal force, then the defender is not culpable for their death, morally speaking.
Note that this doesn't mean if you are being attacked and you stun your attacker, you must now resist harming or killing said attacker until they recover from their debilitation. If one has no reason to believe such a foe is going to change their action after coming out of their apoplexion (is that a word?), one is not obligated to stand like a dunce and let them continue trying to take one's life. Thus, coup de grace.
If, however, one believes it reasonably possible that situations have changed enough since their foes incapacitation that said foe is not likely to continue attacking (i.e., he's likely to surrender), then a Good act would be to respond accordingly. I.e., if you cast hold person on the BBEG, defeat all his minions, and gang up around him, swords and spells at the ready, before the spell wears off, and he hasn't proven himself to be a "go down swinging" type, then a Good character (I feel) is obligated to offer surrender. Not that such a thing applies here.
Now, to return to our bolt-happy druid. As I understand the situation, the hobgoblins were helpless. They were not attacking the druid, they posed to harm to anyone at the moment. Obviously, if they were cut loose and told to go on their merry evil way, they would be a threat again, but that wasn't the scenario.
Further, as I understand it, the druid knowingly and callously employed lethal measures against this surrendered foe, using his life (or rather, death) simply as the means to the end of making his fellow hobgoblin talk, with no regard for the life he was snuffing out. Although upon further reflection I suppose I see a valid case which could be made for this being an act consistent with a Neutral philosophy, I personally believe it to be (quite) Evil.
The situation would be different if the intent were different. For example, when it came time to wonder what to do with these hobgoblins, the only reasonable method to make sure they did no more Evil may well be to kill them. I think one can argue about the humaneness of employing a bolt of electricity for this method, but that's really irrelevant here. If the druid in the actual situation described had shown even a bit more restraint and hesitation to kill the hobgoblins, I would say it was a Neutral act. That's not the impression I got of what happened, however.
I say Evil. Same for the rogue. And I continue to support my stance that they should immediately shift alignments, since alignment is a fluid thing, and change should really occur, and if anything shifts it, murder (which I consider these to be cases of) does. Certainly I'd offer them plenty of opportunities to "set things right" in terms of their morality, but for the moment, beware paladins, because they're Evil.
Additionally, I should note that I disagree with the BoED and BoVD on several issues. I can't really divorce my real-world morality from D&D enough to consider them ultimate authorities on Good and Evil within the game.
The killing of helpless devils and demons may not be truly an evil act, but it's not a good act either. If anything the character is becoming more like the creature he despises if he uses their methods.
While I agree it's possible to slay fiends and not have it be a Good act (otherwise the Blood War becomes quite the paradox), I feel less ambivalence about the idea of slaying (or more properly, destroying) the fiend regardless whether it's helpless or not. Fiends are not normal mortal creatures; they do not learn an alignment, have it imprinted on them, choose it, etc. Further, they are not separable from their alignment, such as a hobgoblin is (in other words, their psyche is not variable as it is in mortals, but inherently linked to their identity). The hobgoblin is evil. The fiend is Evil, as in the very physical personification of a concept. By definition, it is intrinsically Evil. It has no redeeming qualities, and exists for one express purpose: to commit Evil. It can do nothing else. It's not even alive in the same sense as the hobgoblin so much as it is a walking embodiment of a cosmic force.
Anytime a fiend is destroyed, it is removing a tangible and definite quanity of pure, elemental Evil from the cosmos (or at least a plane). Now, intent can rob this of Good status (again, the Blood War isn't a Good thing), but I don't think any status of the fiend itself can similarly deny the act as Good (providing it would otherwise be considered so).
How would one come across a helpless fiend, anyway? I don't see them surrendering much (as in: ever). I suppose one could find a wounded one at 0 or negative hit points. What's to be done then? Destroy it.
|
Yeah Good and evil.
1) For the Druid I dont think it shows chaotic traits. Without knowing the full story of the situation, the druid could be well within his rights of True Neutral. If the hobgoblins were doing things to a forest or torturing animals, then I would say the druid is playing his alignment and his role in the game. He needs to know info about this and should do whatever to gain that info. Now if it was just because the druid was irritated about not getting an answer then i would say, yeah it was evil.
2) I have to disagree with you on the rogue. It is evil to me. Its like 2 cops are on the streets and the crooked cop tells the good cop to shoot because the suspect has a gun. The crooked cop knows he did an evil thing and the good cop feels awful about it. I think it is a similar situation with your rogue.
While I agree it's possible to slay fiends and not have it be a Good act (otherwise the Blood War becomes quite the paradox), I feel less ambivalence about the idea of slaying (or more properly, destroying) the fiend regardless whether it's helpless or not. Fiends are not normal mortal creatures; they do not learn an alignment, have it imprinted on them, choose it, etc. Further, they are not separable from their alignment, such as a hobgoblin is (in other words, their psyche is not variable as it is in mortals, but inherently linked to their identity). The hobgoblin is evil. The fiend is Evil, as in the very physical personification of a concept. By definition, it is intrinsically Evil. It has no redeeming qualities, and exists for one express purpose: to commit Evil. It can do nothing else. It's not even alive in the same sense as the hobgoblin so much as it is a walking embodiment of a cosmic force.
Anytime a fiend is destroyed, it is removing a tangible and definite quanity of pure, elemental Evil from the cosmos (or at least a plane). Now, intent can rob this of Good status (again, the Blood War isn't a Good thing), but I don't think any status of the fiend itself can similarly deny the act as Good (providing it would otherwise be considered so).
How would one come across a helpless fiend, anyway? I don't see them surrendering much (as in: ever). I suppose one could find a wounded one at 0 or negative hit points. What's to be done then? Destroy it.
Actually I think a stronger case could be made why it is wrong to slay a fiend then an evil hobgoblin. A fiend as you say does not choose to be evil, they are created that way. They are only acting as the universe has made them act. To punish them for something that they have no control over can certainly be viewed as discrimination. It is more akin to someone that is born with a mental illness. The evil hobgoblin on the other hand, had free will and chose to do evil. He wasn't born evil he became that way based on the decisions he made. That is a heck of lot worse than a creature that had no choice in its creation.
OK, this is a topic which can be discussed to no end, so I'll take to examples from my current campaign.
Example 1: Heroes have defeated a bunch of hobgoblins, and two surrendered. They refused to cooperate during interrogation, so the druid killed one with a Call Lightning. That made the other talk. Druid in question is True Neutral.
Other than asking the druid if they're feeling alright I'd call this overkill...
[quote=]
Example 2: The rogue (CN) is grappling a lizardfolk who tries to escape. The lizardfolk surrenders to the rogue (they both speak draconic). The druid arrives. The rogue tells the druid "Kill him", and doesn't tell him he has surrendered. The druid slashes him with a scimitar.
If he is obviously grappling the lizardfolk then the druid has just been conned into killing the lizardfolk and its the rogue's fault but only if he's good aligned though fortunately for the druid their neutral aligned status protects them from this becoming an "evil" act as they are required to play both sides of the balance anyway.
[quote=]
My question is, is killing surrendered enemies evil? Or is it just chaotic? Does the fact that these two were "monstrous" humanoids mitigate the circumstances? I don't really think the CN rogue was out of line, but the N druid is maybe starting to garner some chaotic traits.
And what about good party members witnessing this? In my opinion, good characters should not allow captured enemies to be killed (unless they are devils or demons, that is).
Thoughts?
I ran a halfling sorceress in a greyhawk game where the paladin's player had two goblin prisoners dangled over a cliff and when their brethren started rocks down at him (and hitting) he had the pair thrown off the edge.
Later on after the dm had three npcs wipe out almost the entire goblin settlement my character found the only survivor who had been manacled to a wall and looked like she had been abused.My character being NG and one of only two characters who could actually speak goblin questioned the captive whilst the paladin player watched and waited until he decided to murder the captive over the objections of the rest of the group chasing her through an obscuring mist using his character's ability to detect evil in a series of caverns once home to a large tribe of goblins and cut that goblin down from behind.
He also coerced another player playing one of two elven rangers to wander down the opening to a long forgotten tomb which my character was checking out as it radiated necromantic magic and almost killed off that newbie player's character except for another two players jumping in.
My point is that if this player can get away with this and not be stripped of his character's paladin status then the examples above aren't evil acts either...
I'm surprised to see that many people consider Paladins to be religious zealots who kill everything that disagrees with his church. To me, that is Lawful Evil. To me, paladins should always be virtues of goodness, giving quarters where it is asked, never lying or being deceitful.
I will probably inform the druid that he has committed a couple of evil acts, and that if he continues, he will have to change his alignment. I will still let him run the PC though.
Actually I think a stronger case could be made why it is wrong to slay a fiend then an evil hobgoblin. A fiend as you say does not choose to be evil, they are created that way. They are only acting as the universe has made them act. To punish them for something that they have no control over can certainly be viewed as discrimination. It is more akin to someone that is born with a mental illness. The evil hobgoblin on the other hand, had free will and chose to do evil. He wasn't born evil he became that way based on the...While I agree it's possible to slay fiends and not have it be a Good act (otherwise the Blood War becomes quite the paradox), I feel less ambivalence about the idea of slaying (or more properly, destroying) the fiend regardless whether it's helpless or not. Fiends are not normal mortal creatures; they do not learn an alignment, have it imprinted on them, choose it, etc. Further, they are not separable from their alignment, such as a hobgoblin is (in other words, their psyche is not variable as it is in mortals, but inherently linked to their identity). The hobgoblin is evil. The fiend is Evil, as in the very physical personification of a concept. By definition, it is intrinsically Evil. It has no redeeming qualities, and exists for one express purpose: to commit Evil. It can do nothing else. It's not even alive in the same sense as the hobgoblin so much as it is a walking embodiment of a cosmic force.
Anytime a fiend is destroyed, it is removing a tangible and definite quanity of pure, elemental Evil from the cosmos (or at least a plane). Now, intent can rob this of Good status (again, the Blood War isn't a Good thing), but I don't think any status of the fiend itself can similarly deny the act as Good (providing it would otherwise be considered so).
How would one come across a helpless fiend, anyway? I don't see them surrendering much (as in: ever). I suppose one could find a wounded one at 0 or negative hit points. What's to be done then? Destroy it.
Are you being ironic?
If he is obviously grappling the lizardfolk then the druid has just been conned into killing the lizardfolk and its the rogue's fault but only if he's good aligned though fortunately for the druid their neutral aligned status protects them from this becoming an "evil" act as they are required to play both sides of the balance anyway.
Emphasis mine. I disagree with this. The morality of one's acts aren't changed due to your alignment; the fact that the druid is Neutral has no bearing at all on whether this is an Evil act or not. Alignment would only affect this insofar as it gives a likely range of intentions. Additionally, as has been stated already, "playing both sides of the balance" is only one possible (and somewhat controversial) way of approaching the True Neutral alignment.
My point is that if this player can get away with this and not be stripped of his character's paladin status then the examples above aren't evil acts either...
Or that your DM has a seriously skewed sense of the alignments. I'd argue that the described actions of the paladin violate both Law and Good, but I'll only address Good (since Law vs. Chaos is always harder and I don't have that much time).
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make sacrifices to help others.
Emphasis mine again. What part of the paladin's actions conform to this, again?
[RANT]
So much of alignment discussion can be resolved by simply referring back to what the Core Books actually have to say on the matter. Specifically with paladins, they must be Lawful and Good; i.e., conform to both principles. Not some psychotic murdering evangelist. If you want to run the alignments differently, that's your call, but a note should be made to your players and to others on the boards when relating stories pertaining to such matters before hand. Otherwise, the citations of supposedly acceptable paladin behavior found just in this thread are completely out of whack.[/rant]
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make sacrifices to help others.Emphasis mine again. What part of the paladin's actions conform to this, again?
[RANT]
So much of alignment discussion can be resolved by simply referring back to what the Core Books actually have to say on the matter. Specifically with paladins, they must be Lawful and Good; i.e., conform to both principles. Not some psychotic murdering evangelist. If you want to run the alignments differently, that's your call, but a note should be made to your players and to others on the boards when relating stories pertaining to such matters before hand. Otherwise, the citations ofsupposedly acceptable paladin behavior found just in this thread are completely out of whack.[/rant]
Well if you look at the core books you see:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.
Notice, not life, but innocent life. By killing evil creatures this is done, why?
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Also the iconic paladin is described as:
Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.
Combine this with the hound archon hero from the MM (a paladin as well):
The hound archon hero is a mighty champion of justice, devoted to the pursuit and destruction of evil in all of its forms.
It seems pretty clear that when faced with an evil creature it perfectly acceptable to be merciless towards it. Now is it required of a paladin? No, a paladin doesn't have to play that way, but a paladin is a force for good that opposes evil. Most people might see a fiend and an evil mortal as different, but to a paladin they are both sources of evil that spread darkness to the world. And both must be stopped, one way or another.
We are kind of veering of track here people. All in good discussion form of course.
It boils down to this (In my opinion):
-Executing the hobgoblin is not evil as long as:
- *It was not done in a cruel manner (which it wasn't by all descriptions)
*There was justification. Where the party had proof that caused them to believe the hobgoblins had committed previous evil acts (defending themselves and their homes from looters does not count towards this) and that they were to dangerous or evil to let live.
* But if the hobgoblin was executed solely to make the other talk then you should probably consider it murder, not an execution.
- Tricking the druid into slaying the lizard man was an evil act as:
- * He had surrendered.
* It was not the same as execution as the party never had the chance to judge his threat to society or the party by judging the creature’s actions and then executing the lizard man if he was deemed too evil and dangerous to let live.
* The rogue made the druid kill someone who was helpless (in the broader sense of the word)
* It was an evil act on part of the rogue but only a neutral to slightly evil act on part of the druid for killing a helpless enemy (in the sense that fighting would have been a lost cause).
* But if the hobgoblin was executed solely to make the other talk then you should probably consider it murder, not an execution.
If the only reason he was captured alive, instead of just being killed outright, was to gain information, then killing him for not talking would not be evil (assuming of course it wouldn't have been evil to kill him outright). At that point he needed to justify his continue existence. His life was already forfeited, the party was giving him a chance to earn it back, he didn't want to.
|
|
The hobgoblins were (as I understand it) no longer a threat. It would have been different if they were still attacking- one is entitled to defend oneself (or others) by whatever means necessary. If the opponent leaves you with no reasonable option but lethal force, then the defender is not culpable for their death, morally speaking.
I think I understand what you are saying, but the above is where I disagree.
"No longer a threat" -- What if the opponents were not really a "threat" to begin with? What if the PC is 4-5 levels higher than the "threat"? Is it still a "threat"? Is it wrong to use lethal force? Doing so would certainly be against the "respect for life". Basically, what constitutes "threat"? Whether or not they have a big knife?
"No reasonable option" -- I find it hard to believe that every fight that people go through with D&D, the end result is "they left me with absolutely no other alternative -- I had to kill him".
Sorry -- I have been in far, far, far, far too many groups where all the PCs are standing around the lone goblin that surrendered trying to decide what to do. Three hours later, one person will have had enough and will kill the goblin just to get the game going again and asks for forgiveness later.
Sorry -- I have been in far, far, far, far too many groups where all the PCs are standing around the lone goblin that surrendered trying to decide what to do. Three hours later, one person will have had enough and will kill the goblin just to get the game going again and asks for forgiveness later.
Reminds me of some threads I've seen. :P
I'm dreading to pull real-life events into this, but I will.
A UN soldier in Afghanistan (nationality doesn't matter) captures a suspected member of Al Qaeda and tries to interrogate him, and the terrorist doesn't talk. The terrorist is mortally wounded, but can be saved. The UN soldier instead decides to put a bullet through his head.
The UN soldier is, unfortunately, caught on videotape. Result? He most likely faces a sentence for murder. I see these two situations as quite the same actually. So this soldier has at least acted chaotic. It's against rules of war to kill helpless enemies. Is it an immoral act? Is it evil? I'll leave the question hanging.
An example from TV... in season 2 of 24, Jack Bauer mercilessly shoots and kills a bad guy in order to be accepted by some gang leader. The bad guy had already been caught by the cops, and was a high profile witness in the case. Jack did what he had to do in order to serve the greater good. In this case, killing the helpless guy. Evil? Maybe.. but again, the greater good has to stand for something. Killing a regular hobgoblin soldier doesn't serve any greater good.
I'm dreading to pull real-life events into this, but I will.
A UN soldier in Afghanistan (nationality doesn't matter) captures a suspected member of Al Qaeda and tries to interrogate him, and the terrorist doesn't talk. The terrorist is mortally wounded, but can be saved. The UN soldier instead decides to put a bullet through his head.
The UN soldier is, unfortunately, caught on videotape. Result? He most likely faces a sentence for murder. I see these two situations as quite the same actually. So this soldier has at least acted chaotic. It's against rules of war to kill helpless enemies. Is it an immoral act? Is it evil? I'll leave the question hanging.
An example from TV... in season 2 of 24, Jack Bauer mercilessly shoots and kills a bad guy in order to be accepted by some gang leader. The bad guy had already been caught by the cops, and was a high profile witness in the case. Jack did what he had to do in order to serve the greater good. In this case, killing the helpless guy. Evil? Maybe.. but again, the greater good has to stand for something. Killing a regular hobgoblin soldier doesn't serve any greater good.
Point one: not exactly what we are talking about. And yes realworld shouldn't be used. You should have made it a fictional example based on real world events.
The soldiers guilt should and will be based in the courts. We have neither the full story or the videotape. End of story.
"Jack Bauer" well it is a show based off of shades of grey. He broke local law but not the mandate he was given. He executed an evil person for the greater good by eventually taking down an even more evil dangerous person. Also known as letting the smaller fish go to catch the big fish.
(Kind of LN or NG.)
I'm dreading to pull real-life events into this, but I will.
A UN soldier in Afghanistan (nationality doesn't matter) captures a suspected member of Al Qaeda and tries to interrogate him, and the terrorist doesn't talk. The terrorist is mortally wounded, but can be saved. The UN soldier instead decides to put a bullet through his head.
The UN soldier is, unfortunately, caught on videotape. Result? He most likely faces a sentence for murder. I see these two situations as quite the same actually. So this soldier has at least acted chaotic. It's against rules of war to kill helpless enemies. Is it an immoral act? Is it evil? I'll leave the question hanging.
Illegal =/= evil. But it is certainly a good effort. Also in most D&D worlds there is not the same kind of legal structures that there are in RL. Let's say a druid in a typical D&D setting captures some evil hobgoblins (we believe they are evil based on the fact they attacked the druid without cause). What are the druid's logical choices now? Let them go? Kill them? Turn them over to some authority that might not have jurisdiction over the area where the attack occured or has standing orders that all hobgoblins are to be put to death? Travel even further to find a "good" organization that might be willing to take these prisoners in to redeem, without any care of legal authority?
You can't just say, "It is wrong to kill them" without giving some kind of functional alternative. That is the worst thing I've seen from some DMs, a damned if you do and damned if you don't set up. You can't kill them, but there isn't anywhere you can take them. Let them go and they will either keep attacking you like a damn D&D Team Rocket, or they just go off and slaughter a bunch of weaker folk.
An example from TV... in season 2 of 24, Jack Bauer mercilessly shoots and kills a bad guy in order to be accepted by some gang leader. The bad guy had already been caught by the cops, and was a high profile witness in the case. Jack did what he had to do in order to serve the greater good. In this case, killing the helpless guy. Evil? Maybe.. but again, the greater good has to stand for something. Killing a regular hobgoblin soldier doesn't serve any greater good.
And what exactly does letting them live serve, especially if their modus operandi hasn't changed?
Point one: not exactly what we are talking about. And yes realworld shouldn't be used. You should have made it a fictional example based on real world events.The soldiers guilt should and will be based in the courts. We have neither the full story or the videotape. End of story.
"Jack Bauer" well it is a show based off of shades of grey. He broke local law but not the mandate he was given. He executed an evil person for the greater good by eventually taking down an even more evil dangerous person. Also known as letting the smaller fish go to catch the big fish.
(Kind of LN or NG.)
personally, i believe that what Jack did was an evil act. Check Heroes of Horror. In there, the corrupt avenger prestige class is a guy who does... Oh, I'll just quote it.
'Born to the sword, the corrupt avenger has experienced firsthand the devastation that violence can cause. He survived, but someone close to him was not so lucky. as a result, he has sworn vengeance against whoever or whatever caused his loss, whether it's a specific individual or every representative of a specific kind of monster. He accepts every cost to have his vengeance, even to the forfeit of his very soul. What does not kill him makes him stronger.'Also, they have a quote from Alhandra:
'Shovan has gone too far. His desire to destroy evil has made him become a thing of evil himself
--Alhandra'
So i believe that what Jack did was an evil act. Same with the soldier.