|
In order not to distort a thread, due to my oversight, I will open a thread with the pertinent question.
i have a question.
Ah, a question, attack to someone in fleeing because activate the moral (low hp and he dont die) is a Evil action?
I, how GM, i said, yes. You?
User lemeres was kind enough to answer my question but when I got the wrong thread I had to change it and I would like to continue here.
I think it depends on the situation.
Even if an enemy flees, he might still represent a threat- not in the immediate situation, but in absolute terms. An assassin might come back to try again while you are sleeping. And if the person is a known serial killer, he might go out and kill again after fleeing.
Now, if the person fleeing is the town drunk that foolishly picked a fight with you at the bar... yeah, that might be evil. He seems to have realized his mistake by that point.
the Adventure Path has the option to make recurrent villains, or not. All enemy has a Moral, (my players no), (damn, I can't access certain pages on my work computer)
Examples:in this point, i am aware that each case must be treated individually. I don´t seek a moral dissolution, only to establish a standard line on what is evil or not.
1)example of NPC symbolizing bigotry or territorial. Make easy to play.
2)example of NPC that surrender o flee, and he can back or not.
3)example of NPC when their morale is active, he kill himseld, (easy how "1")
4)example of NPC use tactical retreat. (maybe, the principal)
5)example of NPC that dont want a die.
Ok, as core:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
also add as evil cast spell with evil tag.
A good and (maybe) neutral PC don´t want kill or slay the enemy, if the enemy is how example 1 o 3, wellcome, xD.
here in Spain We have a saying "A enemigo que huye, puente de plata", i dont know the english version, its translation is, "A fleeing enemy, silver bridge". Meaning: Recommend avoiding enemies at all costs. When an opponent leaves, it is convenient to give him facilities to leave and, in this way, leave us alone. In general, it is recommended to facilitate, even in a gifted way, the departure of a competitor or someone who may cause us harm.
and this is when we have the problem.
as well indicated lemeres, "Even if an enemy flees, he might still represent a threat- not in the immediate situation," (example 4) but, how a player can make diference between examples 2,4 or 5.? Answer, they can't.
For me, Flee is a panic state similarly interpretable to surrender, in the same way the PCs can´t to know NPC´s thoughts, a NPC can`t know a PC's thoughts, The few times I see an NPC surrender, he usually does a style reference, he gives up assuming the PCs' good aptitude will spare his life.
how always, depend the situation.
in this concrete situation,
A npc active her morale and flee, (maybe example 2, maybe example 4, maybe example 5) the archer, to see, shoot an arrow and kill him.
ok, how GM, i want to know the motivation to make this, when the encounter was over.
Player explanation LN archer, "if he try kill me, i kill him" (what troll logic is this, clarify that this player states that lethal attacks are evidence of wanting to kill and non-lethal are evidence of not wanting to kill. and he doesn't understand why sometimes you have to make non-lethal attacks trying not to kill an NPC when he makes lethal attacks on you.)
Player 2 explanation (don't remember Alignment, good maybe). "if we don´t kill him, (escape reference) you don´t give us exp and drops" (WHAT THE FU..? seven years play with me to pathfimder, and still haven't you learn that the experience is given by properly overcoming a scene and not by being serial killers?)
ainx. for me, and in the absence of a coherent justification, I consider this an evil action.
for example 2,4 and 5, if a coherent justification, for me, is a evil action.
I know it depends on the situation and all that, but to make some general lines, what do you think? and I put it as a rules question, because it affects the mechanics of Alignment Steps and its decision can change the alignment and playing with certain classes such as Cleric or Paladin can affect. oh, now that I mention it, the paladin has a separate ethical behavior, so let's ignore examples of paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure, but I think you might be confusing the word 'morale' (which means when the NPC will run away, as a game term; something like 'bravery' outside the game) with the word 'moral' (which means a belief as to what is right or good.) I'd bet the words have a related origin but they're not the same.
On your examples, the only one where it's certainly not evil to attack the fleeing enemy is #4 (IMO). The others depend on what the PCs know or believe.
|
|
"morale" is the NPC sheet.
The examples are from Kingmaker and jade regent, i know is a difficult topic to deal with it.
Happs Bydon CR 1/2
XP 200
Male human ranger 1
LE Medium humanoid (human)
Init +2; Senses Perception +5
Defense
AC 14, touch 12, flat-footed 12 (+2 armor, +2 Dex)
hp 11 (1d10+6)
Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +1
Offense
Speed 30 ft.
Melee dagger +3 (1d4+2/19–20)
Ranged composite longbow +3 (1d8+2/×3)
Special Attacks favored enemy (elf +2)
Tactics
During Combat Happs is overconfident and enjoys boasting
during battle, calling out attacks and hollow threats that he’s
ill-equipped to carry out. As a battle progresses, if his insults
and threats continue to fail, he grows increasingly grim and
quiet. He prefers to fight with his longbow, letting his men
take the risks in melee. He uses his alchemist’s fire against
PCs in a tight group, or perhaps as a distraction against the
stables to draw the PCs out of combat and into firefighting or
controlling panicked horses.
Morale Happs knows that his position as second-in-command
is tenuous at best and won’t back down from a fight in
front of his men—as long as one other bandit can see him,
he fights to the death. If all other bandits are slain, Happs
flees or surrenders immediately if he’s taken any damage (or
immediately upon suffering any damage otherwise).
Statistics
Str 14, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 10
Base Atk +1; CMB +3; CMD 15
Feats Point-Blank Shot, Toughness
Skills Intimidate +4, Knowledge (nature) +3, Perception +5, Ride +6,
Stealth +6, Survival +5
Languages Common
SQ track +1, wild empathy +1
Combat Gear alchemist’s fire (2); Other Gear leather armor,
dagger, composite longbow (+2 Str) with 20 arrows, 2 days of
trail rations, silver Stag Lord amulet worth 20 gp, 35 gp
In my example, all depend on what the PCs know, include 4.
But, if a player try to find out why he's running away, sense motive check or Proffesion (soldier or militar) how creative solution, and the learn that is a retreat tactic, then yes, no mercy, but, how i said, don't give me a coherent justification, they do not bother to find out what happens in combat, they just kill and passing the next.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As AVR says, morale and moral are two different words, with different meanings.
From the Cambridge English Dictionary:
morale (noun)
the amount of confidence felt by a person or group of people, especially when in a dangerous or difficult situation.
as opposed to
moral (adjective)
relating to the standards of good or bad behaviour, fairness, honesty, etc. that each person believes in, rather than to laws.
|
|
yeah, i undestand that, but I do not mean that.
In game term,
morale is how a NPC is hostile with you.
then, when morale is active, the NPC flee if indicated by the morale section, or fight to the dead.
when NPC choose flee, and that i mean, a PC choose kill to fleeing NPC,as it is put, its evil action, and here enter the PC's moral.
if is a Good PC, you do not respect the life of an NPC who is no longer hostile to you, (we can discuss if flee is a surrender or not).
If a Neutral PC, the can do, if the player balance good action with evil action for keep neutra.
if a evil PC... no coments, how said here, ancha es castilla. (wide is Castile; it means acting with total freedom. And its meaning comes from the fact that at the time of the Reconquest, the lands of Castile were very little inhabited, therefore the Castilian fields were the perfect place to start a business (legal or illegal) without anyone seeing you.xD)
of course, It depends on the situation, what the PCs know, and the type of "morale" that the NPC activates, with which each situation is unique, although for this, you must first have a base, and my base, is what it puts in the core. For here, we can talk case for case.
I'm still not sure I understand you. The bad grammar and spelling are a problem. What is the question that you are asking?
|
|
I spanish, maybe, problem of traslation.
I know the possible variants and how to respond to very specific ethical things.
Yesterday, in game, the scene occurred as I described it above.
The game is Kingmaker, 3º book, in the fort, if you want more information.
in the boss battle, the damage the boss received was enough to activate his morale. "morale section", and the player sought to kill him.
No more information can give, why? because i give the same information that the players had at that time to make that decision. I am aware that the same action with different information gives different ethics.
For me, flee and surrender is the same, both seek the same, save life at that time. not all of us assume panic in the same way.
surely you want to know more, but is only that action with that information what i judge.
and maybe you ask? but if you have not given any information. you have the same information as the players, they didn't bother trying to understand what had happened, why they were there, whether or not they were responsible, if they had clues. nothing, they didn't try to find out anything, they just wanted to kill him, because he had attacked them. And I am not going to enter who acted badly, because the players lose.
kill for kill when a enemy flee, evil or not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In adventure paths there's a section on most NPCs called "Morale". It talks about how an NPC fights and when (if) they flee.
Here's one from a module on my phone.
SHADOW CONJURATION NIGHT HAG CR 3
hp 18 (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 215; see pages 14 and 23)
TACTICS
During Combat: The hag turns invisible as soon as combat
starts, then she uses deep slumber on the PCs. She attacks
anyone left awake, using her other spell-like abilities as
needed. As an illusion, she lacks a heartstone and the
abilities it grants—among other things, this reduces all her
saving throws by 2.
Morale: The hag is an illusion and fights until destroyed.
I couldn't find any in this module that don't fight to the death, but they often say things like: "Goobygoo is brave and will fight until reduced to 10hp before fleeing."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By book 3 of Kingmaker your PCs should know that the bandits you are fighting have done plenty of bad things. If the bandit running away was still carrying their weapons then chasing the bandit and killing them probably isn't evil. Almost certainly isn't evil. The bandit may have panicked but as far as the PCs know the bandit is likely to go and steal again, maybe to kill again.
If the PC has information that says the bandit is likely to give up banditry now, or that one more word might make the bandit fully surrender that might be different. I don't think you had such information here?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i have a question.
Ah, a question,If I attacktosomeone who isinfleeing becauseactivateof what' written in the moral section: (low hp and hedontdoesn't die). is this an Evil action?
The answer is: probably not.
If your enemy is fleeing to stay alive just so they can come back and kill you then killing them is not an evil action.
If your enemy is fleeing and isn't going to come back then it probably is evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And, how does the player,
astell the differences between an enemy fleeing for life andfromfleeing to attack again?Fleeing to attack is retreat, and until i know, That is not Evil.
Yup, I agree. Honestly in most battles soldiers would chase fleeing enemy soldiers. They weren't evil, they were just pumped up and full of adrenaline. Don't expect people to agree on what's "Evil" and what isn't though, there's never agreement.
Sí, estoy de acuerdo. Honestamente en la mayoría de las batallas los soldados perseguirían a los soldados enemigos que huían. Eran 't mal, que sólo fueron bombeados y llenos de adrenalina. No espere que la gente esté de acuerdo sobre lo que es "Malvado" y lo que no lo es. Sin embargo, nunca hay acuerdo.
|
|
Mr charisma, thanks for the corrections, write in English is not my forte, translating from the English I do not have many problems.
80% of the matches, the NPCs fights until destroyed, this includes final bosses, important encounters, territorial animals, mindless enemies ... i don't see problem here.
Knowledge is power.
If a player know that your enemy retreats to seek reinforcements, i not stopping the attack.
If a player know that your enemy retreats to save the live... it is something else, the decision that if he is going to return, is exclusive to the GM, if the group has plenty of experience, I see no reason to put a recurring enemy, then that NPC, retreats, redirects, or becomes alcoholic and ends up in jail . But, at the time of flee, you do not know what will happen, (if you do, it is not fleeing, is a withdraw, see point above).
in case of doubt, especially if your alignment is good, you have to apply the least harmful case, in this case let go.
Normally an enemy NPC with evil alignment always will kill. It is very rare for an evil NPC to have something other than fight to be destroyed or retreat to seek reinforcements as morale. (Rare, but exist)
if the player is 100% sure of what the enemy NPC is going to do, I don't see a problem, believe it or not, I agree with much of the above, but the question I asked remains unanswered, because everyone says "it depends" , and the question is as is, because that's how the scene unfolded. If there had been a "depends", or the players had investigated more during combat, perhaps the question would be another or directly, there would be no question.
Thanks again Mrcharisma for the corrections and all for the answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In real life, people don't drop their weapons unless they are surrendering and giving themselves to custody of their captors, not if they are running away. The Geneva Convention doesn't require a soldier to relinquish their weapon immediately on surrendering and is why in a lot of war footage you see a literal pile of guns that surrendered soldiers are tossing their weapons into as they march past.
If you are fleeing, the only reason you would ditch your weapon is because it either is extremely heavy and would hinder your retreat (like a mounted machine gun or a siege engine in Pathfinder) or you have a reason to believe your weapon would somehow be a distraction to slow the enemy's advance. Neither of these scenarios make sense in a melee combat in Pathfinder and thus you almost never see someone throw their weapons down in RPGs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fleeing and surrender is not the same thing. Killing a person who surrenders is probably an evil act, but even then there may be circumstances where that is not true. If the Bandits where to surrender and the given a fair trial executing them after wards is probably not an evil act.
If the characters are responsible for the safety of others not pursuing an enemy may be a dereliction of their duty. If the players have the responsibility for the safety of an area and allow the dangerous criminals to escape they are morally responsible for the crimes those criminals commit. So if the characters are the ones in charge of an area allowing bandits it is not an evil act to prevent them from escaping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bandits don't really have rights and even if they did, they should have the charter from Restov that literally says they're supposed to put bandits to the sword(which means they're supposed to kill them if that doesn't translate well from english).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On medieval battlefields dropping your weapon was a promise that you weren't coming back to fight. It happened a fair bit for common soldiers who couldn't expect to be ransomed and who didn't feel like being killed as they ran away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mr charisma, thanks for the corrections, write in English is not my forte, translating from the English I do not have many problems.
No worries. I'm mostly translating so that you can make sure I'm answering the right question (If I translate incorrectly then you'll know I answered the wrong question so you can try asking the question again).
Dropping weapons also happens if your enemy is PANICKED.
|
|
Mrcharisma, yes, its the best answering.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that we are in a rules section, and my question is a possible alignment violation based on what the game considers good and evil, pag 166 core rulebook.
I can't accept a concept actual of moral o law actual in a fantasy game that already has its own rules.
the Core said:
But what exactly is a Game Master? (CRB: 396)
Storyteller, Entertainer , (me not, I bore even the sheep xD, the credit my players play goes to James Jacobs and his APs),Judge, inventor and Player. Maybe I don't agree with Inventor, but it's there and I have to respect it.
As a GM, I try to enforce the rules, sometimes for the benefit of the Players, sometimes not, it depends on how they play.
the game says when an action is good or evil, everything that is not in these two (98% of the actions) are neutral.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
You must follow these criteria, not the personal ones, because I, who have worked for the police, have other different legal and ethical criteria, but as I am a GM, I have to stick to these. why? page 396.
the question is the same.
If I attack someone who is fleeing because of what' written in the moral section: (low hp and he doesn't die). is this an Evil action?
for me, yes, because, the combat ends (even if the Players are not aware of it). the primary objective at that time is to save life, any other assessment (for example attacking him because he is going to return is out of place). Want to flee is a feeling of fear, (Mrcharisma, If we consider it a state, it is better in Frigthened than in Panicked, since the latter makes you run randomly depending on the source of danger, also, panicked characters cower if they are preventd from fleeing. Some NPCs, when they try to flee, and have no escape, act in two ways, either fight to the death or surrender hoping that the PCs' good nature spares their lives. Morale section)
Continuous.
a NPC flee, or try, that NPC is no hostile, and It could be considered Unfriendly. although it is true, I have not found anything that describes what each condition indicated in the Dimplomacia check.
...
...
...
I just realized an error on my part in the statement of the question.
If I attack to kill someone who is fleeing because of what' written in the moral section: (low hp and he doesn't die). is this an Evil action?
It is true that in the initial question I did not put it, but I did put it in the description of the scene, and this, if the answer changes a bit.
other people and i ask, They gave me solutions like trying to grapple, non-lethal attacks, paralyzing him, but not killing him.
ups, a word change all, true?
then, the question is
If I attack to kill someone who is fleeing because of what' written in the moral section: (low hp and he doesn't die). is this an Evil action?
My opinion, yes.
other answers such as, "If", "Depend", "according to the Geneva Convention which regulates that war must be waged" ...o justifications for a Player to take an action, They will be ignored and depending on the topic to be treated flag as distortion of the thread. I am only interested in technical rules based on CRB or other book how AP.
Thanks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
then, the question is
If I attack to kill someone who is fleeing because of what' written in the moral section: (low hp and he doesn't die). is this an Evil action?
My opinion, yes.
...
Let's look at some Paladin codes from some core deities:
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will redeem them by the sword.
Bandits are a plague. Under my will they come to justice. If they will not come willingly before the law, where they can protest for justice in the courts, they will come under the power of my sword.
Remember these are tennets set down by deities that Paladins MUST adhere to. If they don't adhere to these they risk losing their powers. Since Paladins also CANNOT commit evil acts without losing their powers we can assume that none of these are evil acts in the Pathfinder universe.
Remember that fleeing is not the same as surrendering. Killing a prisoner who has surrendered would be evil (unless they are already condemned to die), but a fleeing enemy is still a combatant, they're simply retreating to save their own lives.
|
|
Mrcharisma,
the paladin code is a separate condition, I'm using the general rule of conduct, and I have not named classes for either the PCs or the NPCs, since I don't want the paladin behaviors, they are exclusive to paladins, not all classes.
my personal experience as player with the paladins, the further the better. xD
Paladin, for me, one of the most difficult classes to Roleplaying
Mrcharisma, a question?
A PC who is not a paladin can follow the paladin's code of conduct by following the same god.
For example, a Warrior who follows the God Torag, can he follow the code of conduct of a Paladin of Torag?
|
|
no hate, they have two codes, the basic CRB 166 and code paladin of selected God.
In case of alignment confrontation, the paladin's code prevails over the normal one,
I was asking the second, because I understand the need for a paladin to follow the code, but a non-paladin, unless it is to break the rules and hesitate to the GM, I don't see any sense.
But I am interested in how you have explained it, I take note.
Oh yeah sorry here is the general Paladin code of conduct:
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she
respect legitimate authority,
act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth),
help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends),
and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
The specific codes for Torag/Sarenrae/Abadar/etc are in Addition to the general code, not in place of it (Paladins must abide by both codes).
The reason I brought this up is not because you have Paladin in your party, but because anything in the Paladin code is by definition NOT considered an Evil act in Pathfinder.
Paladins MUST NOT commit evil acts, yet they're told to punish those who threaten innocents, show no mercy to the enemies of their people and use the sword to redeem those who will not come willingly as they refuse redemption. If you're in the heat of battle then stopping a dangerous foe from fleeing isn't an evil act any more than slaying an enemy who attacks you.
If that enemy never raised a weapon against you in the first place it's a different story, but I'm assuming we're talking about an enemy who was fighting, lost and ran.
|
|
but I'm assuming we're talking about an enemy who was fighting, lost and ran.
Yes, for me, the combat is over, (always is flee and no retreat or tactic) the NPC is no hostile, unfrienly, is the word i used, and PCs insist in kill and not another way for stop him. Always with the condición: morale activate.
The scene is important to the main story, his death is not part of the story, but his presence is. He can have vital information, although if he dies, they can obtain it through other ways, the player declares his intention to kill him for the sole fact that he attacked him, and another player declares, if we do not kill him, we do not receive exp, gold or objects . Bypassing of the history's plot , forgetting what they were doing and why they were there, and above all, they were the first to attack and they were defending their "home".
Why did I obey the latter? Because I'm only interested in action without further pretexts, because with pretexts, I am clear about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that a lot of people tend to think that all actions can be defined as either good or evil. Some acts are neutral on the good vs evil spectrum. Killing fleeing enemy is usually going to be one of those cases. This of course assumes that fighting the enemy in the first place is not an evil act. If the characters where to attack an innocent person for no reason, than killing that person while he was fleeing would be an evil act.
Killing in itself is not an evil act. The OP posted a snippet from the rules book about killing, but is ignoring one import detail which is the part about innocent life. Killing an enemy that is not an innocent is not an evil act. There are times when killing can be justified and may even be considered a good act. Killing a person to prevent that person from murdering another person is a good act. Killing an innocent person for pleasure or profit is an evil act.
The LN archer in the original post sounds like he is following his alignment. This is a basically following the idea of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The second player is using player justification for his characters actions. That is not so much a matter of alignment as bad role playing. As a GM I would have no problems with the first player, but the second one would need to come up with something better.
|
|
emm,
Core pag 166
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
I do agree on one thing, and this I have realized while studying these texts.
Any action that is not within these texts is neutral. that is to say, 90% of the actions of a PC is neutral, actions that, in our point of view, could be a crime, but here, neutral. That is why we should not look at the actions with our customs and follow more or less these guidelines, which in themselves are not many.In a combat, the exchange of blows is inevitable and killing an NPC without the morale being activated, is normal action and within the course of the game, but when one surrenders or loses the will to fight and flees, things change.
For no-GM people, normally, the scenes in which the NPCs have morals, are usually those that involve a named NPC and his escort (whose moral is usually if the boss dies, the escort flees in terror) or another scene whose NPC, or is not evil, that is to order (and they have not paid enough to die for it) or other similar depending on the situation. No every scenes.
Morale has another function, and it is to make encounters faster, if the encounter ends, what is the point of annihilating someone who does not have the will to fight?
that's why I don't ask Players, but rather my question is GMs, for obvious reasons.
and I'm glad I made this post, I've learned things.
This is a basically following the idea of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
Lawful Neutral: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
Lawful neutral means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.... An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth cannot be a personal code of someone legal, since they are governed by honor, virtue etc, etc. In addition, they should act as a Judge. This is a delicated point.
Killing in itself is not an evil act. The OP posted a snippet from the rules book about killing, but is ignoring one import detail which is the part about innocent life. Killing an enemy that is not an innocent is not an evil act. There are times when killing can be justified and may even be considered a good act. Killing a person to prevent that person from murdering another person is a good act. Killing an innocent person for pleasure or profit is an evil act.
tipical error of a player.
in PFS no have a mission of murder to another because kill is evil,kill never is justified, unless an authority allows or requests, for example, hunting bandits or wanted dead or alive posters. Only under these conditions are they justified, and here "innocent lives" do not enter.
Another Player's mistake is just reading the first line, and not reading the rest, the part that says "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life." is the description of a PC of good alignment, down, two lines later, pray, being good implies ...
|
|
I have already warned that I was going to ignore and even report if I saw it necessary to any player who instead of giving me technical data tried to impose his way of thinking on me.
How is a Player different from a DJ?
To the question:
If I attack to kill someone who is fleeing because of what' written in the moral section: (low hp and he doesn't die). is this an Evil action?
A player only read:
If I attack to kill someone is this an Evil action?
or
If I attack to kill someone who is fleeing is this an Evil action?
All the answers here have been ...
If .... Depend.... Kill Killing in itself is not an evil act....
seriusly... I have 7 years in adventure path and society, the NPCs and their behaviors are adapted to the Stories.
for example: A serial killer will not be ordered to be captured alive or dead because he has gone for bread, there will certainly be a story that asks the PCs to go and capture him.
The creators of the adventure paths are governed by the principles of the CRB, I have never seen an AP contradict in terms of alignment, in society yes, but they never penalize the players, they explain to the GM and through him, to the players, that they can do evil things under that situation.
It seems that you are accusing me of reviewing, combat by combat, looking to see if the Player kills, if he kills him I penalize him, I am the evil incarnate in GM.
Seriously, the question, is a question from a GM to another GM because we have ALL the data of a game and the BEHAVIOR of an NPC. The question is A VERY SPECIFIC CASE OF A VERY SPECIFIC TYPE OF SCENE, a type of scene that can pass 1 scene out of every 2 books of an adventure path.
Also, I have never ever seen any example that have set on a AP, and I have seen many, not all. Do you play games invented by your own GM? if so, congratulations, this post is not for you, there is no room for GMs with their own games, my doubts are in AP, and I want help from GMs.
Seriously, I'm going to start reporting, I can't go one step and back three.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eye for an eye is actually part of many ancient law systems. The earliest know appearance was in the Code of Hammurabi which actually predates the Hebrew bible. It was actually part of, and in some cases still is part of several legal codes. Saying it cannot be part of a legal code is contradicted by history.
Your statement that killing is never justified unless authority allows it is showing your basis. Lawful Good is not the only good. Chaotic Good is just as good as Lawful Good. The other problem with this statement is who has the authority to authorize a killing? If it is the government where does their authority come from? If a deity is the authority, who authorized their authority? Killing an innocent person is an evil act even it is authorized by the proper authorities. Likewise killing a person harming an innocent is a good act if it is the only way to stop the innocent from being harmed. The fact that the person killing the criminal is not authorized does not in any way make it an evil act. It may make it a chaotic act, but that chaotic is not evil
The second line you state does not mention killing. What it says is is “Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.” Respecting life does not mean that you cannot end it if the circumstances are right. And the last line of that section states “People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.” Notice that neutral people are only reluctant to kill innocents. They have no problems with killing, just killing an innocent.
Tell me what is the evil act in these two scenarios.
1. A father kills a person wo is kidnapping his small child to torture, abuse and kill for his own pleasure.
2. The rounding up and killing of a significant portion of the population by the legally elected government based on being a specific ethnic group.
One of these acts would be considered chaotic good, the other lawful evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have already warned that I was going to ignore and even report if I saw it necessary to any player who instead of giving me technical data tried to impose his way of thinking on me.
I don't mean to be rude, but you came here asking for advice. You have 100% agreement from everyone here that killing a fleeing enemy is NOT an evil act, and you're ignoring all of them because you don't like their reasoning.
Maybe the language barrier is the problem (you're getting hung up on the word "killing" in the Evil alignment description), but if you're not going to listen to advice I'm not sure why you asked it in the first place.
Mysterious Stranger and I have both quoted rules text for you, and the others have put their opinions in based on years of gaming. We CAN go into deeper lore as to why killing an Evil character is almost always a good action (petitioners and what powers the planes), but I really think the language barrier would be too much there.
TLDR: No it's not evil according to the rules. If your personal beliefs disagree with this that's fine, but that's your house-rule and you should make this VERY clear to the players before the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is a Player different from a DJ?
To the question:
If I attack to kill someone who is fleeing because of what' written in the morale section: (low hp and he doesn't die). is this an Evil action?
Also it's "morale" - the "e" matters (it's a different word).
Just FYI (For Your Information).| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have already warned that I was going to ignore and even report if I saw it necessary to any player who instead of giving me technical data tried to impose his way of thinking on me.
How is a Player different from a DJ?
To the question:
If I attack to kill someone who is fleeing because of what' written in the moral section: (low hp and he doesn't die). is this an Evil action?A player only read:
If I attack to kill someone is this an Evil action?
or
If I attack to kill someone who is fleeing is this an Evil action?All the answers here have been ...
If .... Depend.... Kill Killing in itself is not an evil act....
The reason people are doing that to you is this:
"Because of what's written in the morale section" is something that a player has no way of knowing. It cannot guide his actions, and thus cannot be fairly judged toward a player's motivation. Thus, the answer to the question you're actually asking is no, this is not an Evil action.
So people are trying to answer the other question, "if I attack to kill someone who is fleeing, is this an Evil action?" instead. And, unfortunately, the answer really is "it depends."
----
There are only a few actions which, by the technical data in the rules, are Evil:
- Casting a spell that has the [evil] or [pain] descriptor.
- Torture (each single act is an automatic alignment change.)
- Fleshwarping.
- Taking Damnation feats (after the first, each additional feat is an automatic alignment change.)
Killing has never been one of these, in the history of alignment in the D&D game. Instead, the act itself is unaligned - and thus, as a GM, you need to judge why the killing is happening. Yes, that can be situational even for the same kill, depending on why.
As for the "Good vs. Evil" seeming to imply that killing is intrinsically evil: this is why the Paladin Codes came up. By definition, the Paladin Codes cannot fall outside of what is considered permissible for a Lawful Good alignment.
We can see this when we consider what a paladin of Abadar would do when faced with Happs. "Bandits are a plague. Under my will they come to justice. If they will not come willingly before the law, where they can protest for justice in the courts, they will come under the power of my sword."
Since Happs is a bandit, the paladin will likely call for the bandits to surrender - in effect seeking to arrest them - if it's feasible to see them brought back to Restov (or a settlement in the players' dominion) for trial. If it's not feasible, or Happs proves unwilling to submit, the paladin will attack to kill.
This, with this motivation, would be a Lawful Good action - and Happs's scripted behavior does not change this!
Edit to add:
Instead of "morale", think more of "fighting spirit" (eg, esprit de corps). That might help?
|
|
Sandslice, i know that "Because of what's written in the morale section" is something that a player has no way of knowing. I am fully aware, therefore, I have asked the help of GMs, because the Players do not know about rules, even though it is a Rule Question.
There are only a few actions which, by the technical data in the rules, are Evil:
- Casting a spell that has the [evil] or [pain] descriptor.
- Torture (each single act is an automatic alignment change.)
- Fleshwarping.
- Taking Damnation feats (after the first, each additional feat is an automatic alignment change.)Killing has never been one of these, in the history of alignment in the D&D game. Instead, the act itself is unaligned - and thus, as a GM, you need to judge why the killing is happening. Yes, that can be situational even for the same kill, depending on why.
Maybe in D&D works, but in pathfinder don´t work the same,
Edit to add:
Instead of "morale", think more of "fighting spirit" (eg, esprit de corps). That might help?
I know that "morale" is a Figthing spirit" I've already put it before, when "morale" is active, the NPC loss the will to fight and flee, and in some cases, if he has no escape, he fights to the death or surrenders.
of course, how yoy said and and I agree with you 100%, a player don't know this, and this happens because history is prepared to do so, there is always a reason. NPCs, especially those with names, have a story, a background, a motivation and are not put there for the PCs to have exp, gold, and items. What makes the interaction with them must be more than an exchange of blows. Sometimes, no matter how good you are, and I have arranged it that way, you want to kill him, no matter how much he runs away. But this is not the case, and now I am going to put my final conclusions, because I found the answer I was looking for, curiously, in the same CRB.CRB 166:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
No discusion here,
Although I started to play the role in 1998 at D&D, if it is true that I never had as many books as I have Pathfinder, I know the history of the creation of Paizo because I lived it in his day. That said, it is normal to pull D&D if Pathfidner does not make a rule clear, but here it does, and curiously, nobody has mentioned it, and everyone justified that killing is not Evil, putting justifications that I have not asked for. As Master, judge of the rules of the game, he asked if killing is an evil act, the Game said YES, but, the game said another very important thing to GM and is: CRB Pag 168.
it’s generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something’s in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There’s no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment— unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
It’s best to let players play their characters as they want.If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn’t fit his alignment, let him know that he’s acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an
adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player,in your opinion, is portraying his character.
Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters.
I really tell you, I was unaware of this.
It would not have been easier to say this rule, not to uselessly justify why I am killing, that I have not asked for that.you came here asking for advice. You have 100% agreement from everyone here that killing a fleeing enemy is NOT an evil act, and you're ignoring all of them because you don't like their reasoning.
Don´t wrong, never i said i have 100% agreement from everyone here that killing a fleeing enemy is NOT an evil act.
I said, I understand that a combat, if it is killed, is not considered evil, since in a game you are not going to stop to analyze each scene.I'm not ignoring everything, in fact, you have helped me find and understand a couple of things that until now I did not understand. But if I ask one thing in particular, I ask, What does Bible Hebrew, imperial wars and real world historical events have to do with a game?
Only want a thing, the above.
No is "you don't like their reasoning", how you said, are years game, i, since 1998, i Know all justification, i don't know, all rules, when i have question, i ask, and I expect an answer, not a moral assessment.
If I wanted a moral assessment or discuss whether a good PC should kill or not. I wouldn't put it here.
A specific scene, a specific action, a specific rule, a specific pag, I have been very ,very specific, When something does not go as it should, the first question I ask is that I have done wrong, I do not blame the players, and I'm looking for answers, that's why I wrote here, not looking for them to agree with me.
We CAN go into deeper lore as to why killing an Evil character is almost always a good action (petitioners and what powers the planes),
I repeat, I am not looking for a philosophy, only a rule. I found it, and I will adapt it to the game as the story demands. I am a narrator and judge, nothing more. For me the rule is already solved. And also, I will add the ideas that both you and Bjørn Røyrvik have given me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok I think you've got it sorted and understand where we're coming from. It looks like the biggest problem here was the language barrier, so ...
One last tip to help you in the future: Keep your posts short and they're easier to read.
I hope we haven't chased you away, and I hope I didn't offend you with my last post.