You can't function under the concept that a monster is going to be that one in a million exception to it's natural alignment."Less than 50%" is a far cry from "One in a million".
So if I follow what you pro-goblin-lifers have been preaching...any time a rogue EVER sneak attacks ANYTHING while stealthed it's an evil act. ESPECIALLY if they kill it?Please stop inventing things whole cloth. At least base your arguments on some manner of rationality.
Actions and choices do not have alignments and do not fit into the alignment system.
...
If the player acts at the table in such a way that does not match his alignment over a long period of time...
Clearly actions and choices do fit into the alignment system if you can act in a manner not in keeping with your alignment.
I am *so* *glad* I am not sitting at a table where we have to talk for an hour before every combat about whether it's ok to kill the BABY EATING GOBLINS. Combat in Modifer Editi^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Pathfinder is long enough as is.For the record, the rest of us are glad we don't have people who think being good is a justification for genocide at our tables.
Also, nice strawman.
You go read classic monsters revisited and take a look at the goblin entry before even TRYING to quantify less then 50% of them at that alignment.
|
Edit: Err...the point of that being that live capture of Goblin Warchiefs is kind of unproductive, and only done by the real zealous redeem-y sorts.
Really, my group captured ripnugget alive, and I don't think I have a lawful good party at all, in fact I think my party at the time consisted of a nuetral good character, a nuetral character, and Belor Hemlock. Since they didn't have the resources to spare someone to watch him, they left him tied up completely disarmed above the pit that holds the bunyip. Left him tied up with Gogmurt whose hands they bound so he couldn't cast spells. Yeah they could have escaped and caused havock, but trying to escape might also make them fall into the pit and become bunyip food.
The party took ripnugget back to town where he was hung for his crimes. Gogmurt actually got let go because it became very aparent that he had nothing to do with the attack on sandpoint, had been against it from the start, and wanted to leave the town alone because he didn't want heroes coming and killing them all. Granted this wound up causing problems later because the PCs while he was captured killed every last goblin in the fort including the concubines and the children in the cages. but still, this is a party that had the chance to kill the evil dude, didn't, had him face justice through proper channels, so no I don't think that killing out of pragmatism is a nuetral act because they could have captured him.
|
Using trickery and deceit is not evil just chaotic.
If killing a charmed goblin under the pretense of truce is evil.
By the way coup de grace would not work as the Goblin is not helpless.
Unarmed and unarmored yes, helpless no.
Backstabbing as a Rogue would be an evil act as it can only be done using trickery and deceit. It doesn't even give the target a chance to defend themselves against it.
Same applies to hold person, web, and any other method used to temporarily incapacitate the target.
All would qualify as evil.
Killing the kids hmm evil or not, that falls into a moral grey area. Letting the kids live may kill them just as much as actually killing them. Leaving them alive they will foster a strong hatred for sandpoint and its heros who came and slaughtered thier parents. They will want revenge. How ever at the same time they are just kids and without parents are vulnerable to animals, disease and starvation.
Backstabbing as a Rogue would be an evil act as it can only be done using trickery and deceit. It doesn't even give the target a chance to defend themselves against it.
False on all three counts:
1. It isn't an evil act.
2. It can be done through other methods than trickery or deceit, most commonly by simply timing your attacks with a companions so that both can't be defended against at once (ie, flanking).
3. You can defend against sneak attacks the same as any other attack rolls.
Backstabbing as a Rogue would be an evil act as it can only be done using trickery and deceit. It doesn't even give the target a chance to defend themselves against it.False on all three counts:
1. It isn't an evil act.
2. It can be done through other methods than trickery or deceit, most commonly by simply timing your attacks with a companions so that both can't be defended against at once (ie, flanking).
3. You can defend against sneak attacks the same as any other attack rolls.
4. You didn't agree to parley.
5. You didn't invoke the name of Good Goddess of beauty (your own goddess) to prove you aren't lieing.|
|
Using trickery and deceit is not evil just chaotic.
If killing a charmed goblin under the pretense of truce is evil.
By the way coup de grace would not work as the Goblin is not helpless.
Unarmed and unarmored yes, helpless no.Backstabbing as a Rogue would be an evil act as it can only be done using trickery and deceit. It doesn't even give the target a chance to defend themselves against it.
Same applies to hold person, web, and any other method used to temporarily incapacitate the target.
All would qualify as evil.
Killing the kids hmm evil or not, that falls into a moral grey area. Letting the kids live may kill them just as much as actually killing them. Leaving them alive they will foster a strong hatred for sandpoint and its heros who came and slaughtered thier parents. They will want revenge. How ever at the same time they are just kids and without parents are vulnerable to animals, disease and starvation.
Okay, I totally disagree with your argument about sneak attack, because there are a ton of situations in which you get sneak attack where the opponent is completely aware of you, and without using any trickery or deceit, but while I don't agree with your arguement I can at least follow it.
But I don't get where you're coming from at all saying if killing someone while charmed and under a truce is evil using web, or hold person, or any other method to temporarily incapacitate the target is evil. WTF gwah? that makes no sense, thats saying if killing a person is evil, tying them up is evil buh?
|
|
Using trickery and deceit is not evil just chaotic.
If killing a charmed goblin under the pretense of truce is evil.
By the way coup de grace would not work as the Goblin is not helpless.
Unarmed and unarmored yes, helpless no.Backstabbing as a Rogue would be an evil act as it can only be done using trickery and deceit. It doesn't even give the target a chance to defend themselves against it.
Same applies to hold person, web, and any other method used to temporarily incapacitate the target.
All would qualify as evil.
Killing the kids hmm evil or not, that falls into a moral grey area. Letting the kids live may kill them just as much as actually killing them. Leaving them alive they will foster a strong hatred for sandpoint and its heros who came and slaughtered thier parents. They will want revenge. How ever at the same time they are just kids and without parents are vulnerable to animals, disease and starvation.
Okay, I totally disagree with your argument about sneak attack, because there are a ton of situations in which you get sneak attack where the opponent is completely aware of you, and without using any trickery or deceit, but while I don't agree with your arguement I can at least follow it.
But I don't get where you're coming from at all saying if killing someone while charmed and under a truce is evil using web, or hold person, or any other method to temporarily incapacitate the target is evil. WTF gwah? that makes no sense, thats saying if killing a person is evil, tying them up is evil buh?
Webbed, sleeped, held evil creatures are helpless and unable to defend themselves by the definitions people are using its an evil act.
Personally I disagree.
Hence the arguement that breaking a nonexistant truce and killing an unarmed goblin is no less evil then slitting its throat while its asleep.
If you count one as evil then the other which is just as cold blooded murder is equally evil.
The problem is two fold just convincing someone to drop its weapons and take off its armor and then attacking it is not murder. Its not even evil. Players routinely sleep, petrify, stun, web evil intelligent beings and then coup de grace them without alignment penalty as such the same applies to charming it convincing it to disarm and then killing it.
Using trickery and deceit is not evil just chaotic.
If killing a charmed goblin under the pretense of truce is evil.
By the way coup de grace would not work as the Goblin is not helpless.
Unarmed and unarmored yes, helpless no.Backstabbing as a Rogue would be an evil act as it can only be done using trickery and deceit. It doesn't even give the target a chance to defend themselves against it.
Same applies to hold person, web, and any other method used to temporarily incapacitate the target.
All would qualify as evil.
Killing the kids hmm evil or not, that falls into a moral grey area. Letting the kids live may kill them just as much as actually killing them. Leaving them alive they will foster a strong hatred for sandpoint and its heros who came and slaughtered thier parents. They will want revenge. How ever at the same time they are just kids and without parents are vulnerable to animals, disease and starvation.
Okay, I totally disagree with your argument about sneak attack, because there are a ton of situations in which you get sneak attack where the opponent is completely aware of you, and without using any trickery or deceit, but while I don't agree with your arguement I can at least follow it.
But I don't get where you're coming from at all saying if killing someone while charmed and under a truce is evil using web, or hold person, or any other method to temporarily incapacitate the target is evil. WTF gwah? that makes no sense, thats saying if killing a person is evil, tying them up is evil buh?
He's not communicating well but what he's trying to get at is that killing the goblin was only really evil because it had been incapacitated by a spell, and the logical extension of that would be that ANY time you incapacitate a creature with magic killing it would also be an evil act.
If you go back and read my post you'll see that I wasn't talking about a flanking sneak attack. Specifically, the situation was that either A. You'd used stealth to get in melee range without the creatures knowledge or B. You'd used bluff to alay the targets supsicions before striking for sneak attack.So here's what's bugging me about the logic;
Creature was coerced magically (enchantment itself could be considered an evil act as you're mentally dominating another creature or robbing it of it's free will) truce had been established and after enchanted creature subjected to it it was killed.
Things that are bothering people;
PC's broke there word - No, there was never true consent. One cannot consent unless there is a clear and uninfluenced understanding on both sides. The goblin, who's ability to consent was compromised by a mind affecting spell, could NOT have been considered acting naturally.
PC's Murdered a sentient in cold blood - No, they killed something that, had their magic not subdued, would have killed them.
It's a Chaotic Act - Not necessarily. If the courts would have killed the creature, their actions very well may have been considered highly lawful...in Korvosa for instance, gob's are killed on sight. It was a duplicitous act, but one can be lawful and still lie. Politicians. In fact, arguably, a lawful character should be BETTER at lieing then a chaotic one as they are more likely to think the lie through.
It's an Evil Act - No. Self defense is an inherent right. In many ways this could have been considered both a compassionate act (in that turning the creature in to human law would have been equivalent to torture) and may have saved lives had the goblin survived to do what goblins do afterwards....raid settlements.
It's ALSO worth noting that depending on the Adventure Path (this was Rise of the Runelords?) the local laws may have been in support of this act. Korvosan Law for instance, would have supported the killing of the chief.
Further Suppositions made in this thread;
The killing of any creature unable to defend itself is Murder.
Thus the questions about incapacitating magic and sneak attacks.
Good Characters MUST accept ALL requests for quarter.
See my prior example about the serial killer.
Using trickery and deceit is not evil just chaotic.
If killing a charmed goblin under the pretense of truce is evil.
By the way coup de grace would not work as the Goblin is not helpless.
Unarmed and unarmored yes, helpless no.Backstabbing as a Rogue would be an evil act as it can only be done using trickery and deceit. It doesn't even give the target a chance to defend themselves against it.
Same applies to hold person, web, and any other method used to temporarily incapacitate the target.
All would qualify as evil.
Killing the kids hmm evil or not, that falls into a moral grey area. Letting the kids live may kill them just as much as actually killing them. Leaving them alive they will foster a strong hatred for sandpoint and its heros who came and slaughtered thier parents. They will want revenge. How ever at the same time they are just kids and without parents are vulnerable to animals, disease and starvation.
Okay, I totally disagree with your argument about sneak attack, because there are a ton of situations in which you get sneak attack where the opponent is completely aware of you, and without using any trickery or deceit, but while I don't agree with your arguement I can at least follow it.
But I don't get where you're coming from at all saying if killing someone while charmed and under a truce is evil using web, or hold person, or any other method to temporarily incapacitate the target is evil. WTF gwah? that makes no sense, thats saying if killing a person is evil, tying them up is evil buh?
Webbed, sleeped, held evil creatures are helpless and unable to defend themselves by the definitions people are using its an evil act.
Personally I disagree.
Hence the arguement that breaking a nonexistant truce and killing an unarmed goblin is no less evil then slitting its throat while its asleep.
If you count one as evil then the other which is just as cold blooded murder is equally evil.
The problem is two...
Thank you.
Exactly.People are NOT looking at the implications of what they're saying and they don't seem to follow the reasoning out to it's logical conclusion.
|
|
Now the Goddess Shelyn would probably lay the smackdown on her Errant Priest for using her name to convince the Goblin who is charmed. Lying while using your Deity probably would earn you a few days of no spells at best. Unless its a Deity that would approve of it. Asmodeus would not the false contract, violation of your word etc is going to lead to a conversation...
How ever that is not an alignment violation its a you have damaged your standing in the eyes of your Deity and need to atone for it.
|
|
See my prior example about the serial killer.
I saw it, lying to get the prisoners released not evil. Killing the killer evil. You could have as easily captured him to face justice.
I just love listening to the justifications I hear and wondering how said people would react if the police did that.
cop "Yeah, I shot that drug dealer in the face after he came out with his hands up, he was going to deal drugs later anyways, so what I did was a public service."
cop 2 "yeah I had the guy handcuffed then slit his throat, he was a murderer. He would have been sentenced to death anyways."
and for the record, I wouldn't stop good characters from doing this sort of thing, good people do break down in the face of evil and commit evil acts, that doesn't mean the acts aren't evil just because the people commiting them are good, or even have good justification/intent behind their actions.
Also, yeah killing a paralyzed sentient being is an evil act, so is killing one asleep. Web just makes it harder to defend yourself, it doesn't make you helpless nor take away your threat, so I don't consider it evil if you're acting in self defence. And once again, I wouldn't expect alignment changes from people who kill a paralyzed creature etc. unless it was done again, and again, and again, and again and... you get the idea. In fact there are lots of actions good people do that are less than good. As long as in the long run they are trying to be good I'm fine with letting them have their slips. I think the judgement of Roy in OotS while in heaven is a good example of what I'm talking about.
First situation: Absolutely 100% an evil act. I don't see how there can be any debate about this one. If the paladin had been in on it, instead of unconscious, he would have fallen on the spot.
Second situation: I'd rule that a neutral act. There's harm to it, but the player didn't force the enemy wizard to wear it without identifying it. He didn't do anything to stop it, but IMO he was under no moral directive to do so, even as a good character. It's not a good act, but it isn't an evil one, either.
+1 on both counts.
More subtle (and less game-affecting) signs of Shelyn's displeasure could include stains on the Clerics equipment, discolored marks on the skin, etc. as Shelyn rewards the 'ugly deed' with outer manifestations of ugliness. Attempts to clean the gear might last only minutes, with creeping verdigris spreading like frost-patterns across metal jewelry, weapons and armor, and discolorations afflicting items of cloth or wood (or the Clerics own skin, hair and teeth, which might also emit an unpleasant odor, combining the less pleasant aspects of halitosis, psoriasis and eczema). The staining and discoloration could begin with the weapon that struck the goblin, and places were the Cleric would later remember that his blood splashed, but quickly spread to all gear worn at the time of the treacherous act, and to appropriately symbolic body parts (the face / mouth, as well as the weapon arm, being the most relevant, with the bad breath emanating from the Clerics tongue, that was used to fool the goblin into...
Nice. I might steal this for my Ravenloft game.
See my prior example about the serial killer.
I saw it, lying to get the prisoners released not evil. Killing the killer evil. You could have as easily captured him to face justice.
I just love listening to the justifications I hear and wondering how said people would react if the police did that.
cop "Yeah, I shot that drug dealer in the face after he came out with his hands up, he was going to deal drugs later anyways, so what I did was a public service."
cop 2 "yeah I had the guy handcuffed then slit his throat, he was a murderer. He would have been sentenced to death anyways."
and for the record, I wouldn't stop good characters from doing this sort of thing, good people do break down in the face of evil and commit evil acts, that doesn't mean the acts aren't evil just because the people commiting them are good, or even have good justification/intent behind their actions.
Also, yeah killing a paralyzed sentient being is an evil act, so is killing one asleep. Web just makes it harder to defend yourself, it doesn't make you helpless nor take away your threat, so I don't consider it evil if you're acting in self defence. And once again, I wouldn't expect alignment changes from people who kill a paralyzed creature etc. unless it was done again, and again, and again, and again and... you get the idea. In fact there are lots of actions good people do that are less than good. As long as in the long run they are trying to be good I'm fine with letting them have their slips. I think the judgement of Roy in OotS while in heaven is a good example of what I'm talking about.
Actauly the example I was referencing involved a serial murderer who had been put in jail repeatedly by the PC's, had managed to free himself several times, and had killed several small children. would they then turn him in to legal system that had failed to take care of the issue, leading to more innocent death, or kill him?
There are plenty of legal systems in the world where EXACTLY what you're talking about happens with the local Security Forces. Just because we don't do it that way in America certainly doesn't make us right. Who's to day thats necessarily the wrong way to handle it? you're attaching a LOT of value to human life that, in the eyes of nature, just isn't there.
If you peel back the social luxuries we enjoy in America and take a hard look at the basic human condition our primitive societies function in EXACTLY that manner.
Nice. I might steal this for my Ravenloft game.
More subtle (and less game-affecting) signs of Shelyn's displeasure could include stains on the Clerics equipment, discolored marks on the skin, etc. as Shelyn rewards the 'ugly deed' with outer manifestations of ugliness. Attempts to clean the gear might last only minutes, with creeping verdigris spreading like frost-patterns across metal jewelry, weapons and armor, and discolorations afflicting items of cloth or wood (or the Clerics own skin, hair and teeth, which might also emit an unpleasant odor, combining the less pleasant aspects of halitosis, psoriasis and eczema). The staining and discoloration could begin with the weapon that struck the goblin, and places were the Cleric would later remember that his blood splashed, but quickly spread to all gear worn at the time of the treacherous act, and to appropriately symbolic body parts (the face / mouth, as well as the weapon arm, being the most relevant, with the bad breath emanating from the Clerics tongue, that was used to fool the goblin into...
All of this is, of course, assuming Shelyn would disapprove.
|
|
Actauly the example I was referencing involved a serial murderer who had been put in jail repeatedly by the PC's, had managed to free himself several times, and had killed several small children. would they then turn him in to legal system that had failed to take care of the issue, leading to more innocent death, or kill him?
okay you got me I was thinking of someone elses campaign. A) your example is a case of the DM dicking with the players, eventually you'd expect the players to react with killing the Villian, my question is, what exactly is happening does the villian always give himself up? and none of that changes the fact that if they kill him while he's helpless yeah, it's an evil act.
There are plenty of legal systems in the world where EXACTLY what you're talking about happens with the local Security Forces. Just because we don't do it that way in America certainly doesn't make us right. Who's to day thats necessarily the wrong way to handle it? you're attaching a LOT of value to human life that, in the eyes of nature, just isn't there.
Yeah you're right there are a lot, and they are generally considered corrupt, not many can trust them, and you're also right that I'm attaching a lot of value to human life, I attach a lot of value to life in general actually, but as far as HUMAN life goes, I do, and luckily so does the game which is why they have that whole line of good creatures respecting sentient life, which in the eyes of nature isn't there, in the eyes of nature, there is no good or evil, that's entirely unproductive to this conversation because in the eyes of nature everything is meaningless and life continues. Survival of the fittest isn't the alignment system this game is based upon.
If you peel back the social luxuries we enjoy in America and take a hard look at the basic human condition our primitive societies function in EXACTLY that manner.
yeah again your right, luckily we aren't dealing with primitive societies, we're dealing with a society that is largely educated, and while more prone to violence non-the-less one with a social structure and an idea of good and evil.
The problem is where is the line drawn, by your arguments what is evil exactly, that serial killer can have reasons and justifications for what he does just like the PCs?
Actauly the example I was referencing involved a serial murderer who had been put in jail repeatedly by the PC's, had managed to free himself several times, and had killed several small children. would they then turn him in to legal system that had failed to take care of the issue, leading to more innocent death, or kill him?okay you got me I was thinking of someone elses campaign. A) your example is a case of the DM dicking with the players, eventually you'd expect the players to react with killing the Villian, my question is, what exactly is happening does the villian always give himself up? and none of that changes the fact that if they kill him while he's helpless yeah, it's an evil act.
There are plenty of legal systems in the world where EXACTLY what you're talking about happens with the local Security Forces. Just because we don't do it that way in America certainly doesn't make us right. Who's to day thats necessarily the wrong way to handle it? you're attaching a LOT of value to human life that, in the eyes of nature, just isn't there.Yeah you're right there are a lot, and they are generally considered corrupt, not many can trust them, and you're also right that I'm attaching a lot of value to human life, I attach a lot of value to life in general actually, but as far as HUMAN life goes, I do, and luckily so does the game which is why they have that whole line of good creatures respecting sentient life, which in the eyes of nature isn't there, in the eyes of nature, there is no good or evil, that's entirely unproductive to this conversation because in the eyes of nature everything is meaningless and life continues. Survival of the fittest isn't the alignment system this game is based upon.
yeah again your right, luckily we aren't...If you peel back the social luxuries we enjoy in America and take a hard look at the basic human condition our primitive societies function in EXACTLY that manner.
Well of course he does. He's not a very good or well thought out villain if he doesn't have reasons to do what he does and the honest belief that it's his right to do so.
The scenario I presented was that due to either money, influence, corruption or rich friends the killer was able to get out of jail repeatedly before his judgement was carried out. What I was striking at was that allowing the villain to go back to jail would only potentially raise the bodycount and that his murders, at that point would have been preventable by the PC's. A good character would not, willingly, by its actions allow an innocent to die. I would go so far as to say that if they DIDN'T kill the villain in that particular case, wether he surrendered or NOT, they would be comitting an evil act.
Consider the villain to be Joker-esque. He gets free, kills some innocent people, the PC's show up and he just kind of smiles a sick little smile throws up his blood stained hands and giggles while saying "take me away!". Maybe he charms the gaurds, maybe he's got a wealthy sponsor.
No, survival of the fittest is most definately not. BUT Alignment is a system based on morality, and all morality springs from basic human instinct, right?
There are Rules in every society. Do not kill the innocent. do not harm children. Do not Rape. Do Not Steal. Most cultures forbid these things, and it's because they speak to a very primal side of us. The makers of this game are human, the alignment system is an extension of basic human morality, and basic human morality is an extention of communal survival instinct...so logically yes, it does have some influence.
Actauly the example I was referencing involved a serial murderer who had been put in jail repeatedly by the PC's, had managed to free himself several times, and had killed several small children. would they then turn him in to legal system that had failed to take care of the issue, leading to more innocent death, or kill him?okay you got me I was thinking of someone elses campaign. A) your example is a case of the DM dicking with the players, eventually you'd expect the players to react with killing the Villian, my question is, what exactly is happening does the villian always give himself up? and none of that changes the fact that if they kill him while he's helpless yeah, it's an evil act.
There are plenty of legal systems in the world where EXACTLY what you're talking about happens with the local Security Forces. Just because we don't do it that way in America certainly doesn't make us right. Who's to day thats necessarily the wrong way to handle it? you're attaching a LOT of value to human life that, in the eyes of nature, just isn't there.Yeah you're right there are a lot, and they are generally considered corrupt, not many can trust them, and you're also right that I'm attaching a lot of value to human life, I attach a lot of value to life in general actually, but as far as HUMAN life goes, I do, and luckily so does the game which is why they have that whole line of good creatures respecting sentient life, which in the eyes of nature isn't there, in the eyes of nature, there is no good or evil, that's entirely unproductive to this conversation because in the eyes of nature everything is meaningless and life continues. Survival of the fittest isn't the alignment system this game is based upon.
yeah again your right, luckily we aren't...If you peel back the social luxuries we enjoy in America and take a hard look at the basic human condition our primitive societies function in EXACTLY that manner.
Sorry I forgot to answer your question about what I consider an evil act;
Unfounded Aggression (lighting random homes on fire, hitting villagers)
Unfounded Patricide or Matricide
Killing Children (ANY children, ANY race. to include demon/devil young, if your setting has them.)
Rape. Period.
Gross Criminal Negligence (knowingly ignoring a situation that leads to harm or death of a good or nuetral sentient creature.)
Theft (non plot induced) from a good or nuetral creature.
Murder of Innocents. This does NOT extend to any creature that has participated in any of the proceeding rules, except, potentially theft.
The Goblin wasn't willing in its actions it was charmed.Au contraire! Charm person cannot make a creature do something against its nature. It only adjusts the attitude of the creature towards the spell's caster. The goblin was by definition willing to talk truce simply because the charm cannot force it to do so!
EDIT: Do note that I also find this questionable on the DM's part, because goblins don't trust anybody. However, we're dealing within the circumstances that actually happened in game, so this goblin was, indeed, willing to trust someone and did trust the truce offered by the PCs, partly because the PC cleric used their status as a cleric of a Good deity to convince him.
He did not do anything against his nature. While he was under the spell he was making a truce with "friends". If he was not under the spell they would have had to talk him into making a truce with enemies.
Would it have considered making a truce with the players if not for the charm spell given the goblin had the upperhand?
Would it have held to the truce once the charm spell wore off?
The answer to both questions is no. The truce is the result of magical influence that temporarily removed its free will.
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)
If someone used a charm person spell to con the person out of thier castle would the deal hold up?
Nope.
Magical influence invalidates agreements.
Except by the same token the creature would not perform any act it would consider suicidal. Taking its armor off in front of the enemy is suicidal no matter if charm person is in effect or not. The fact that the fighter and the cleric both made bluff checks to convince him that they were its friends and therefore it was safe to do so was a willing duplicity.
Emphasis on duplicity.
The goblin then, in favor of this truce took off its armor because the cleric of Shelyn (who is NOT lawful good but instead chaotic good) said she needed to get access to his body to heal him.
That cleric told a boldface lie as she prepared a coupe de grace with the fighter in an effort to conveniently remove an obstacle from their path. It is pointed out their paths need never have crossed, but most parties prefer to scour each floor to eliminate pockets of resistance before it comes back to bite them in the ass.
It was a lie that lead to a betrayal of trust. (even if magically founded)
Lets say a con man lies to someone and gets them to cede over all their money upon death, then tricks them into getting themselves killed. Is that an evil act?
Because if you said yes, that is almost verbatim what happened with Ripnugget.
It would depend on why the con man did it. If making you lose your property and die would stop you from doing the same thing to many others then it would be neutral at worse.
It's the fourth time. He's murdered four innocent children now, and just as before he throws his weapon down as the players approach, standing over the quivering body of his latest victim.
I asked a similar question earlier, and I never got a direct answer. Silence can sometimes be louder than actually speaking.
Edit: I know that silence quote is way off, but I could not find or remember the real one. :(
I really brutalized that one. Oh, well.
because they could have captured him.
Correction,possibly could have captured him.
See my prior example about the serial killer.
I saw it, lying to get the prisoners released not evil. Killing the killer evil. You could have as easily captured him to face justice.
I just love listening to the justifications I hear and wondering how said people would react if the police did that.
cop "Yeah, I shot that drug dealer in the face after he came out with his hands up, he was going to deal drugs later anyways, so what I did was a public service."
cop 2 "yeah I had the guy handcuffed then slit his throat, he was a murderer. He would have been sentenced to death anyways."
and for the record, I wouldn't stop good characters from doing this sort of thing, good people do break down in the face of evil and commit evil acts, that doesn't mean the acts aren't evil just because the people commiting them are good, or even have good justification/intent behind their actions.
Also, yeah killing a paralyzed sentient being is an evil act, so is killing one asleep. Web just makes it harder to defend yourself, it doesn't make you helpless nor take away your threat, so I don't consider it evil if you're acting in self defence. And once again, I wouldn't expect alignment changes from people who kill a paralyzed creature etc. unless it was done again, and again, and again, and again and... you get the idea. In fact there are lots of actions good people do that are less than good. As long as in the long run they are trying to be good I'm fine with letting them have their slips. I think the judgement of Roy in OotS while in heaven is a good example of what I'm talking about.
In real life cops arrest people. In D&D battles are normally to the death. Nice try.
It's the fourth time. He's murdered four innocent children now, and just as before he throws his weapon down as the players approach, standing over the quivering body of his latest victim.I asked a similar question earlier, and I never got a direct answer. Silence can sometimes be louder than actually speaking.
Edit: I know that silence quote is way off, but I could not find or remember the real one. :(
I really brutalized that one. Oh, well.
Nah, the idea came across. Good to have another dissenting voice.
Nah, the idea came across. Good to have another dissenting voice.It's the fourth time. He's murdered four innocent children now, and just as before he throws his weapon down as the players approach, standing over the quivering body of his latest victim.I asked a similar question earlier, and I never got a direct answer. Silence can sometimes be louder than actually speaking.
Edit: I know that silence quote is way off, but I could not find or remember the real one. :(
I really brutalized that one. Oh, well.
If you are good, you take him into custody, and then take him to a different venue for justice. Or, you take him to the temple of a good god and ask that god to pass judgement on his soul.
If you are neutral (and not lawful) you slit his murdering throat and be done with it.
Either way, you act within your alignment or you don't. Either way, you have to live with that decision and the karma that comes with it.
I don't know where this idea that good is someone able to do anything it wants because it's good. It can lie, cheat, steal, kill, whatever as long as it thinks it has the justification.
It is a classic plot that the good guy commits a heinous crime because of his own hubris and decision that he knows what is best and that the ends justify the means. This is not a modern concept. The concept of pride goeth before a fall is very very old and very very canon (Anyone remember Raistline from Dragon Lance? Who became the most evil god of all? There is a reason why you have the saying 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'. All the rationalization in the world won't stop that demon or devil from cackling all the way back to the nether world after you slaughter the good hermit who had the cure for the plague because you were certain he was evil, and his surrender to avoid death was met with a knife to the throat.).
|
|
Interesting debate. It ties in pretty closely with an actual in game experience I had.
A LG Paladin of the Silver Flame, LN Monk that worshipped the silver flame, and my NG Halfling Bard were in charge of a border barony. We were trying to attract tenants to the barony after we retook it from bandits (goblinoid, iirc). An evil druid was causing problems, terrorizing tenants, even attacked and killed a couple, then attacked us one day. We captured her, tied her up, and began transporting her back to the nearest town for justice (we were not empowered with judging privelidges from the king). ON the way, under guard, she wild shaped, and escaped.
Weeks later we encounter her again. She has dominated a man driven mad by the Mournlands, and uses him to kill people. When we find them, he is resting after having slaughtered over three dozen people in a mad rage. The druid is hiding and watching in animal form. We attempt to reason with the man, my bard uses repeated attempts at suggestion to get him to drop his gore soaked weapon as we slowly approach. Eventually he does so, and the bard sends her dinosaur running away from the battle with the sword in it's mouth. The paladin attempts to arrest the man, and he rages again, almost killing the paladin and my bard, even weaponless. The druid had revealed herself as she began casting spells against us, and the monk disabled her, happening to strangle her to unconciousness in his grapple, but not killing her during the course of the fight.
So, now we have the mad, probably dominated dupe dead at our feet, and the cause of this heartache unconscious on the ground. We've already tried, under heavy guard and well trussed, to bring her to justice, but we have no way to prevent her from wildshaping and escaping. Her escape after our last capture lead to the death of at least 40 more people.
The DM was kind enough to inform us at this point that killing a helpless foe is evil, and if it's done or even allowed by the paladin, he'll fall. He also emphasized that the druid in question was female, which seemed inconsequential to me, but the other players were all men and seemed to take this as another reason they couldn't kill her.
Finally, disgusted, I had my bard walk up and slit her throat before the others could stop her.
I don't think killing the druid in cold blood was a good act. It's just the least harmful and least evil act I could think of in the situation.
::shrug::
There are ways to keep captive druids from wildshaping. The simplest is to keep them drugged or unconscious.
|
|
There are ways to keep captive druids from wildshaping. The simplest is to keep them drugged or unconscious.
Yes. And yet we had no drugs, and were keeping her unconscious before - she doesn't need to open her eyes or more or incant anything to wild shape. And our little barony was 2 days' travel from the town where the druid could be judged.
There are ways to keep captive druids from wildshaping. The simplest is to keep them drugged or unconscious.Yes. And yet we had no drugs, and were keeping her unconscious before - she doesn't need to open her eyes or more or incant anything to wild shape. And our little barony was 2 days' travel from the town where the druid could be judged.
We had similar problems one time. We had two methods we used that worked. The first method was to wrap the druid up in increasingly finer nets (which we bought in town, granted). So, something big like a trap net was on the outside, inside that a fishing net, then a combat net, then a fine net and then a silk wrap.
On top of that, we hired a burly halfling to ride in the wagon with him and bang him on the head when he stirred using a frying pan. :) Unconscious druids tend to revert to human form when in wildshape.
Nonlethal damage never becomes lethal damage. A level 1 commoner can have 1,000,000,000 nonlethal damage and still be alive (although in a coma for the rest of his life, barring magical healing).
In other words, you didn't hit her hard enough or often enough. Two days is close enough that you'd only have to water her (which could be done while she wasn't conscious), and doing one nonlethal hit per hour would be enough to keep her asleep for the whole trip unless she was very high level.
|
|
Nonlethal damage never becomes lethal damage. A level 1 commoner can have 1,000,000,000 nonlethal damage and still be alive (although in a coma for the rest of his life, barring magical healing).
In other words, you didn't hit her hard enough or often enough. Two days is close enough that you'd only have to water her (which could be done while she wasn't conscious), and doing one nonlethal hit per hour would be enough to keep her asleep for the whole trip unless she was very high level.
Hm. I would consider constantly beating a helpless murderer over the course of days and maybe weeks as they stand trial about the same, alignment wise, as killing them after witnessing multiple executionable offenses out in the wilds. They couldn't defend themselves at trial, because if they were conscious to speak, they were already flying away in whatever form they'd wild shaped into. And as 7th level characters, we were the highest level people we knew of within less than a week's travel.
I've tried to think what I would've done if I'd been the paladin, instead of a bard....and I think I would've executed her and eaten an atonement. To refuse to take care of a problem that could, and nearly certainly would lead to the deaths of more innocents simply to keep my own soul "squeaky clean" strikes me as more evil and self serving than atoning for my inability or powerlessness to find a better way out of the situation. But not stopping her rampages was not acceptable to me. healing her just to cut her down while conscious is just as self serving and evil as all the other choices available.
::shrug::
Hm. I would consider constantly beating a helpless murderer over the course of days and maybe weeks as they stand trial about the same, alignment wise, as killing them after witnessing multiple executionable offenses out in the wilds. They couldn't defend themselves at trial, because if they were conscious to speak, they were already flying away in whatever form they'd wild shaped into. And as 7th level characters, we were the highest level people we knew of within less than a week's travel.
That's only until you get the druid to some semblance of civilization. Once you do that, it's very easy to keep them from wildshaping, unless your DM is truly out to get you. As was mentioned above, layering nets around them in a sort of druid-prisoner jumpsuit will keep them from going anywhere, as will dosing them with medicines that keep them from concentrating. And you're not "constantly beating" them; you're making sure they stay unconscious so that they're unable to escape. You don't have to have someone pummeling them constantly. A good rap on the head every hour or two is plenty. They'll wake up (when you let them) with a headache, but that's it.
I've tried to think what I would've done if I'd been the paladin, instead of a bard....and I think I would've executed her and eaten an atonement.
That attitude is a good way to have your deity refuse to grant an atonement. They aren't automatic, you know.
EDIT: Also, I don't know your particular barony's laws, but in the era on which Eberron is based, the accused did not necessarily have the right to speak in their own defense at trial.
There are ways to keep captive druids from wildshaping. The simplest is to keep them drugged or unconscious.Yes. And yet we had no drugs, and were keeping her unconscious before - she doesn't need to open her eyes or more or incant anything to wild shape. And our little barony was 2 days' travel from the town where the druid could be judged.
In a game where resurrection and raise dead etc. are common, it's conceivable that killing a villain is not sufficient to prevent them from becoming a recurring villain, and/or continuing to commit evil acts.
So what would the killing actually accomplish? It's not really for the greater good anymore.
Admittedly, in some games, the DM may not bother to have a villain returned to life, but wouldn't it be fun if a paladin killed a villain, fell, and the villain came back to taunt him/her about it? :) :)
Nah, the idea came across. Good to have another dissenting voice.It's the fourth time. He's murdered four innocent children now, and just as before he throws his weapon down as the players approach, standing over the quivering body of his latest victim.I asked a similar question earlier, and I never got a direct answer. Silence can sometimes be louder than actually speaking.
Edit: I know that silence quote is way off, but I could not find or remember the real one. :(
I really brutalized that one. Oh, well.
If you are good, you take him into custody, and then take him to a different venue for justice. Or, you take him to the temple of a good god and ask that god to pass judgement on his soul.
If you are neutral (and not lawful) you slit his murdering throat and be done with it.
Either way, you act within your alignment or you don't. Either way, you have to live with that decision and the karma that comes with it.
I don't know where this idea that good is someone able to do anything it wants because it's good. It can lie, cheat, steal, kill, whatever as long as it thinks it has the justification.
It is a classic plot that the good guy commits a heinous crime because of his own hubris and decision that he knows what is best and that the ends justify the means. This is not a modern concept. The concept of pride goeth before a fall is very very old and very very canon (Anyone remember Raistline from Dragon Lance? Who became the most evil god of all? There is a reason why you have the saying 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'. All the rationalization in the world won't stop that demon or devil from cackling all the way back to the nether world after you slaughter the good hermit who had the cure for the plague because you were certain he was evil, and his surrender to avoid death was met with a knife to the throat.).
If it was that easy to hold on to him he would have been able to savage the town(s) so many times.
In a game where resurrection and raise dead etc. are common, it's conceivable that killing a villain is not sufficient to prevent them from becoming a recurring villain, and/or continuing to commit evil acts.So what would the killing actually accomplish? It's not really for the greater good anymore.
Admittedly, in some games, the DM may not bother to have a villain returned to life, but wouldn't it be fun if a paladin killed a villain, fell, and the villain came back to taunt him/her about it? :) :)
First, +1 That's something that hasn't been brought up yet.
Second, OOOOOHHHHH!!!! Metagame GM Evilness!
There are ways to keep captive druids from wildshaping. The simplest is to keep them drugged or unconscious.
That would be the equivalent of poisoning. IIRC poisoning is considered a vile/evil act.
Nonlethal damage never becomes lethal damage. A level 1 commoner can have 1,000,000,000 nonlethal damage and still be alive (although in a coma for the rest of his life, barring magical healing).
Not true anymore. This came up on another thread recently. I will try to locate it for you.
There are ways to keep captive druids from wildshaping. The simplest is to keep them drugged or unconscious.That would be the equivalent of poisoning. IIRC poisoning is considered a vile/evil act.
No, actually, it wouldn't be the equivalent of poisoning. When you poison someone, the intent is to kill or maim.
When you keep someone drugged for transportation to a secure facility so that they can stand trial for their crimes, the intent is to temporarily remove their ability to escape.
If it was that easy to hold on to him he would have been able to savage the town(s) so many times.
I honestly can't figure out what you are getting at with this statement, it seems to not really comment on the thing you're quoting.
However, since it has 'easy' in it, I'll assume you thought it had something to do with 'It's not easy to hold onto him'.
a) When he tries to escape, kill the SoB. If he's trying to avoid justice, he's no longer surrendered. Feel free to not only kill him, but kill him dead with a shot to the head. No one ever said you have to let them break free. The same with the Druidess above, if she's trying to get away, she's fair game. She's no longer captured or surrendered, she's actively trying to escape justice.
b) I'll just reiterate, who ever said being Good was Easy? If good was easy, we'd all be good and there'd be no wars (or D&D, since we'd not have the concept of good/neutral/evil.
Admittedly, in some games, the DM may not bother to have a villain returned to life, but wouldn't it be fun if a paladin killed a villain, fell, and the villain came back to taunt him/her about it? :) :)
Actually it would be. He would have to go on some quest for the victim if the victim was not evil. If the villain was evil the DM could come up with another way to get rid of the annoyance. I was about to this to a player once, but other interest took priority.
What I find particularly interesting about this thread, is that aside from the enjoyable discussion, I've come close to changing my mind several times.
For the record, I still think the characters acted evilly in situation #1.
But I've almost been convinced it was neutral a few times - the arguments have not been easy to dismiss.
But here's one that keeps me thinking it's evil (I don't remember if it's been brought up already - my apologies if I'm being redundant):
What if the situation had been reversed? What if the goblins, including a sorcerer, had captured the last surviving PC, charmed him into a cease-fire, and then under a flag of truce attacked and killed him.
Would the goblins have committed a good (or even neutral) act? If so, would the goblins be acting outside of their alignment (assume that it's evil)?
I would say it's still evil. It's expected for goblins to do this, because they're evil.
Can it be seen as a good act for the PCs because they're 'good' (and the goblins are evil)? If this is made relative - that is, the same act that is 'good' for a good-aligned individual is 'evil' for an evil-aligned individual - doesn't it open a huge can of paradoxical worms for the alignment system? (I'm struggling to think of one - maybe this has been covered already?)
Personally, I think that 'good' and 'evil' are absolutely defined in game terms as written - that is, an act is good or evil no matter the alignment of the attacker or the victim. This seems easier to implement and work with in the course of a game.
There are ways to keep captive druids from wildshaping. The simplest is to keep them drugged or unconscious.That would be the equivalent of poisoning. IIRC poisoning is considered a vile/evil act.
Sorry, -5.
Poisoning is killing someone with a poison. Force feeding someone enough epicaph to keep them throwing up for 12 hours is unpleasant, and it isn't going to leave them with a warm and fuzzy feeling for you, but it sure keeps them from using spells or powers (too busy heaving to do anything).
Not true anymore. This came up on another thread recently. I will try to locate it for you.Nonlethal damage never becomes lethal damage. A level 1 commoner can have 1,000,000,000 nonlethal damage and still be alive (although in a coma for the rest of his life, barring magical healing).
Yeah, I found it, you're right. You can only go to nonlethal=max hit points now, unless the creature has regeneration.
|
|
That attitude is a good way to have your deity refuse to grant an atonement. They aren't automatic, you know.
It depends. I'd be very sorry I couldn't come up with a better solution, but as I said, in my mind there was no better solution. I took the least harmful way I could imagine to prevent the further deaths of innocents.
This is why I don't play paladins. This situation pretty much screwed this entire campaign up for me. Either I sacrifice my tenants' lives to protect my own state of "grace", or I displease my god and lose my class powers.
Nah, the idea came across. Good to have another dissenting voice.It's the fourth time. He's murdered four innocent children now, and just as before he throws his weapon down as the players approach, standing over the quivering body of his latest victim.I asked a similar question earlier, and I never got a direct answer. Silence can sometimes be louder than actually speaking.
Edit: I know that silence quote is way off, but I could not find or remember the real one. :(
I really brutalized that one. Oh, well.
If you are good, you take him into custody, and then take him to a different venue for justice. Or, you take him to the temple of a good god and ask that god to pass judgement on his soul.
If you are neutral (and not lawful) you slit his murdering throat and be done with it.
Either way, you act within your alignment or you don't. Either way, you have to live with that decision and the karma that comes with it.
I don't know where this idea that good is someone able to do anything it wants because it's good. It can lie, cheat, steal, kill, whatever as long as it thinks it has the justification.
It is a classic plot that the good guy commits a heinous crime because of his own hubris and decision that he knows what is best and that the ends justify the means. This is not a modern concept. The concept of pride goeth before a fall is very very old and very very canon (Anyone remember Raistline from Dragon Lance? Who became the most evil god of all? There is a reason why you have the saying 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'. All the rationalization in the world won't stop that demon or devil from cackling all the way back to the nether world after you slaughter the good hermit who had the cure for the plague because you were certain he was evil, and his surrender to avoid death was met with a knife to the throat.).
sorry, wraithstrike and nathan, my silence on the question was due to either forgetfulness or ignorance of it, not intentful - so neutral, not evil :)
But, I'm glad mdt beat me to the punch - I wouldn't have given an answer that differed substantively.
If it was that easy to hold on to him he would have been able to savage the town(s) so many times.
I honestly can't figure out what you are getting at with this statement, it seems to not really comment on the thing you're quoting.
However, since it has 'easy' in it, I'll assume you thought it had something to do with 'It's not easy to hold onto him'.
a) When he tries to escape, kill the SoB. If he's trying to avoid justice, he's no longer surrendered. Feel free to not only kill him, but kill him dead with a shot to the head. No one ever said you have to let them break free. The same with the Druidess above, if she's trying to get away, she's fair game. She's no longer captured or surrendered, she's actively trying to escape justice.
b) I'll just reiterate, who ever said being Good was Easy? If good was easy, we'd all be good and there'd be no wars (or D&D, since we'd not have the concept of good/neutral/evil.
This line of posting started with the situation being that the villian keeps repeating the same crime. If it were easy to catch him/her there would never have been any repeats.
I will ask another question. Is it good to allow innocents to suffer when you have a chance to ultimately stop it. That line about protecting innocents seems to have gotten lost in the debate.
I guess my question is which one takes precedence?
Do not forget, I am not saying killing a helpless villain that has surrendered is a good idea, but unless he is 100% neutralized he is still a valid combatant.
If he is a caster gag him, tie his hands, take away his spell component pouch. If he is a physical combatant tie him up, and take away all his items. At that point he is no longer a threat. If he has surrendered and these precautions are completed killing him is wrong.
There are ways to keep captive druids from wildshaping. The simplest is to keep them drugged or unconscious.That would be the equivalent of poisoning. IIRC poisoning is considered a vile/evil act.
Thank you for making me look this up in the Book of Vile Darkness.
First, neither poisoning nor drugging someone is listed in their list of evil deeds.
Second, betrayal is. Here's the text:
A betrayal is often nothing more than an elaborate lie, but its implications are greater. Such an act involves earning someone's trust and then using that trust against him or her. Common acts of betrayal include learning and then revealing secrets, or using trust to get close to one's enemies for an attack or theft.
Once again, the PC used the fact that they were a cleric of a good deity explicitly to gain the goblin's trust so that they could get close enough to him and get him vulnerable enough to attack him. Magic was involved, but only indirectly. Remember, charm person only affects the goblin's attitude towards the caster. The cleric wasn't the caster of charm person, so s/he had to convince the goblin to trust him/her on his/her own. S/he used her holy status to do so, then betrayed that trust immediately by slaying the goblin.
Thus, it is an Evil act, as described by the very Book Of Evil Acts.
This line of posting started with the situation being that the villian keeps repeating the same crime. If it were easy to catch him/her there would never have been any repeats.
I will ask another question. Is it good to allow innocents to suffer when you have a chance to ultimately stop it. That line about protecting innocents seems to have gotten lost in the debate.
I guess my question is which one takes precedence?
Do not forget, I am not saying killing a helpless villain that has surrendered is a good idea, but unless he is 100% neutralized he is still a valid combatant.
If he is a caster gag him, tie his hands, take away his spell component pouch. If he is a physical combatant tie him up, and take away all his items. At that point he is no longer a threat. If he has surrendered and these precautions are completed killing him is wrong.
Yes, This. +5.
We have agreement at last. Never meant to say once he dropped the knife he was allowed to run away, then he's fleeing justice, take him down with an arrow to the back of the head.
If he surrenders, you do whatever you have to do to secure him, and if he tries to get free, he's no longer surrendered and you stab him until he quits trying to escape or until he quits bleeding, whichever comes first.
The idea is not to spare his life, the idea is not to get dragged down to his level. :)
In the original thing with the Goblin. If you tried to take him into custody and he started fighting, you whack him hard and fast. If he survives that, tie him up and bring him in, otherwise go about your way with a clean conscience. The thing that tipped it for me was, again, we're going to help you, you can trust us, I'm a priestess of Good Goddess Glenda, who is sweetness and light and would not like me to do THIS! Not only betraying a truce and lieing with intention to murder but invoking your goddesses name to do it. That's a lot of bad karma.
There are ways to keep captive druids from wildshaping. The simplest is to keep them drugged or unconscious.That would be the equivalent of poisoning. IIRC poisoning is considered a vile/evil act.Sorry, -5.
Poisoning is killing someone with a poison. Force feeding someone enough epicaph to keep them throwing up for 12 hours is unpleasant, and it isn't going to leave them with a warm and fuzzy feeling for you, but it sure keeps them from using spells or powers (too busy heaving to do anything).
I dont see that caveat anymore, so drugging him is a valid option, but drugs are considered to be poisons which the druid, depending on his level may be immune to.
We have agreement at last. Never meant to say once he dropped the knife he was allowed to run away, then he's fleeing justice, take him down with an arrow to the back of the head.
If he surrenders, you do whatever you have to do to secure him, and if he tries to get free, he's no longer surrendered and you stab him until he quits trying to escape or until he quits bleeding, whichever comes first.
The idea is not to spare his life, the idea is not to get dragged down to his level. :)
Yes, this exactly. No one's saying you have to dance naked through the fields of pretty flowers hand-in-hand with goblins while they try to gnaw your unmentionables off. Once they aren't a threat, however, a good character should try to avoid killing them.