|
1. There was no truce. I don't get why people keep claiming there is one.
Two of the characters had no intentions of following through with it, the Goblin was being magically forced into it.
2. Choosing to not follow a truce is a chaotic act. Not evil nor is being flat footed helpless. Flat footed does not prevent you from defending yourself makes it incredibly difficult, but does not allow you to coup de grace someone.
3. Considering that people will allow more evil actions and consider them good its hard to understand how they can maintain a position like this.
Charm Person made the Goblin like the party, made it so the Goblin would trust them and made it easy for the goblin to agree to act in a manner it normally would not have. This is a magical influence, because otherwise the Goblin would have:
A. Not agreed to a truce and kept on killing the party.
B. Agreed to the truce and then broken it and killed the party.
C. Agreed to the truce fallen back to get reinforcements and ambush the party again.
So breaking the trust is not a violation of the Goblin's trust in the party, because the Goblin does not trust the party its just been magically convinced that the Sorceress is its friend. Actually by the vary definition of the spell it has no reason to trust or listen to any other member of the party....
I didn't either, I don't think, but it got out there somehow. Figured a clarification was needed.I never restrict what my players do based on their alignment, they are utterly free to take any action they want. What I will do is, if they are about to make an action radically different than their alignment, I'll verbally confirm the action.This. I have no clue where people are coming up with the idea that we're suggesting DMs prevent players from doing things because of their alignment. No one's suggested anything remotely like that.
I think it has more to do with the sweeping generalizations. An act the book defines as evil isn't necessarily evil in every application, but when you state moral rule as absolute it then appears that you're cuffing the players hands.
It's impossible to keep real world thinking out of the game...in fact, if you're getting into the game to the point where your character is concerned about the moral implications of his or her actions you're probably doing something right.
The issue is that a lot of the actions that we're debating could be viewed as either good or evil depending on the player, and that the good of the many (civic virtue) is not being considered.
Sorry the torture comment was just a general response. not necessarily aimed at you. I can't understand how beating someone to unconsciousness repeatedly to disable them could be considered anything less then sadistic.
No worries - I had forgotten the druid example - hopefully my forgetfulness is not a sign of impending lawful goodness :)
Actually, regardless of what I might have said in the past (I could look, but then I might not contradict myself, and where would the fun in that be?) - I think I agree with you on this point - keeping a druid drugged and/or beating him/her into unconsciousness continuously for days at a time does not seem an ideal solution for good characters, particularly lawful good ones.
If the characters are in a situation - as they frequently are - that they are quite remote from civilization, such that it is effectively impossible to return a captive to face justice in a city/town/temple etc., I would opt for the following solution:
For a paladin, I would be ok with them acting as a divine avatar of justice (in effect, serving as judge and jury over the prisoner). This could involve the deity actually taking an active role, speaking/acting through the paladin to serve justice - and in the process absolving the paladin of any responsibility for a potential moral quagmire.
For a lawful good cleric or other lawful good divinely powered character, this might also be appropriate.
For other characters, where the penalties for acting out of their alignment are not as severe, I would still want them to act in accordance with their alignment - lawful characters might get all lawful, and serve as an ad-hoc court system, chaotic or neutral characters (whether good or neutral) may solve the moral problem according to their own moral code, but still in keeping with their alignment.
While this situation offers a good challenge, I think it is different from the original one in this thread, where the characters were maybe not too remote to need to be their own legal system. Now the chaotic characters don't have to be their own legal system, of course, but I think the actions there were not consistent with the "good" part of their alignment (for chaotic neutral characters, I wouldn't argue that the actions were inappropriate very hard).
1. There was no truce. I don't get why people keep claiming there is one.
Two of the characters had no intentions of following through with it, the Goblin was being magically forced into it.Charm Person made the Goblin like the party, made it so the Goblin would trust them and made it easy for the goblin to agree to act in a manner it normally would not have.
False. You keep making these erroneous claims about how charm person works. I suggest you go back and read the spell again. It doesn't work anywhere remotely like you claim.
In fact, it would have been perfectly legitimate for the DM to have Ripnugget continue to attack the entire party, even the enchantress, because goblins will attack and kill even their "trusted friends and allies".
Sorry the torture comment was just a general response. not necessarily aimed at you. I can't understand how beating someone to unconsciousness repeatedly to disable them could be considered anything less then sadistic.No worries - I had forgotten the druid example - hopefully my forgetfulness is not a sign of impending lawful goodness :)
Actually, regardless of what I might have said in the past (I could look, but then I might not contradict myself, and where would the fun in that be?) - I think I agree with you on this point - keeping a druid drugged and/or beating him/her into unconsciousness continuously for days at a time does not seem an ideal solution for good characters, particularly lawful good ones.
If the characters are in a situation - as they frequently are - that they are quite remote from civilization, such that it is effectively impossible to return a captive to face justice in a city/town/temple etc., I would opt for the following solution:
For a paladin, I would be ok with them acting as a divine avatar of justice (in effect, serving as judge and jury over the prisoner). This could involve the deity actually taking an active role, speaking/acting through the paladin to serve justice - and in the process absolving the paladin of any responsibility for a potential moral quagmire.
For a lawful good cleric or other lawful good divinely powered character, this might also be appropriate.
For other characters, where the penalties for acting out of their alignment are not as severe, I would still want them to act in accordance with their alignment - lawful characters might get all lawful, and serve as an ad-hoc court system, chaotic or neutral characters (whether good or neutral) may solve the moral problem according to their own moral code, but still in keeping with their alignment.
While this situation offers a good challenge, I think it is different from the original one in this thread, where the characters were maybe not too remote to need to...
The idea of taking the goblin hostage and delivering it to a court seems cruel and unfair to me. The creature wouldn't understand what was being done, and would likely be displayed before being executed. I wouldn't terrify an animal before I killed it, and really goblins aren't a whole lot better then animals. It wasn't breaking any social conventions for a goblin, and it's actions were completely in keeping with goblinkind.
when you state moral rule as absolute it then appears that you're cuffing the players hands.
How so? Players are free to make any choices they want. The only thing we're doing is making sure those choices have the appropriate consequences. As I've said in other threads, I'm a "Yes" DM. If players ask if they can do something, I generally find a way for them to do it, but there may be consequences. For example, I've had players dimension door onto a hostile dragon's back to get into attack range of it, even after I told them they'd take a penalty to saves against its breath weapon for having limited space to dodge in. They still decided to do it.
Same thing with alignment. I've had a player take and use the Fell Drain metamagic feat from Libris Mortis (which adds a negative level to the spell's damage -- it doesn't strictly speaking make the spell Evil, but I told the player "using the feat will have consequences"); that player's characters got worse and worse nightmares from all the bits and pieces of souls he'd stolen the more he used the feat, until he voluntarily decided to retrain the feat (to be clear, the nightmares had no mechanical effect... he still got his full 8 hours of sleep, etc) because he didn't like where the roleplaying consequences were going.
The idea of taking the goblin hostage and delivering it to a court seems cruel and unfair to me. The creature wouldn't understand what was being done, and would likely be displayed before being executed. I wouldn't terrify an animal before I killed it, and really goblins aren't a whole lot better then animals.
Bull. Goblins have no penalties to either intelligence or wisdom (they get -2 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Cha). They're as fully capable of understanding the process as the average human is.
|
quantifiable, and if a character makes what they consider the Right decision, and they have a good justification for it, how could you consider it anything other then a good act?
because once again, the right decision, and good justification are things that can vary from person to person so much so that the vile BBEG can actually be a BBGG. I mean seriously, look at Jafar from aladin, evil prick right? is he really? he works for a retard who's only there because he was born to it, and he uses his intelligence to guide that retard, but its clear the retard wants just any other retard that his daughter likes just because the other retard was born to it, so he uses his powers to manipulate the retard into making a good decision and putting someone with the brains and power to actually effectively rule in charge and then a totally unqualified kid comes in and makes some absurd claims that he's a prince from some place that as well traveled as Jafar is, he's never heard of. So he does the most logical thing, he gets rid of the kid. A prince won't allow himself to be sent away, they're too proud, so he does what he has to and eliminates the kid for the good of the country. and he's right it turns out that the kid IS a totally unqualified doey eyed peasant who wouldn't know the first thing about ruling effectively. Every decision Jafar makes is one because he knows how rediculously absurd the system of fuedal succession is. And really the worst thing he did was arrange for the death of prince ababah, other then that, he only takes over, and at best humiliates the former sultan who spent years humiliating him with his retardation. Does Jafar have a good alignment or a bad one? could he be good aligned and made one evil decision while everything else he does is well justified?
but no offense because I respect your opinions but you have a list of quantifiable objective acts that are evil yourself that you ennumerated for me earlier in this thread, the only difference is we maybe have a larger list.
The idea of taking the goblin hostage and delivering it to a court seems cruel and unfair to me. The creature wouldn't understand what was being done, and would likely be displayed before being executed. I wouldn't terrify an animal before I killed it, and really goblins aren't a whole lot better then animals.Bull. Goblins have no penalties to either intelligence or wisdom (they get -2 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Cha). They're as fully capable of understanding the process as the average human is.
Well, not quite.
Goblins have the same mental capability to understand human justice, but given the goblin lifestyle where they constantly steal and cheat from each other while the biggest, meanest of them keep a semblance of leadership; trial as the humans see it may be a strange concept to the goblin. I must admit that I am not familiar with the said goblin character's awareness of human culture however.
That being said, I'm not sure if I'd say that "taking the goblin hostage and delivering it to a court seems cruel and unfair" to me.
...but I feel that I'm getting away from the subject here.
[/treadjack]
quantifiable, and if a character makes what they consider the Right decision, and they have a good justification for it, how could you consider it anything other then a good act?
because once again, the right decision, and good justification are things that can vary from person to person so much so that the vile BBEG can actually be a BBGG. I mean seriously, look at Jafar from aladin, evil prick right? is he really? he works for a retard who's only there because he was born to it, and he uses his intelligence to guide that retard, but its clear the retard wants just any other retard that his daughter likes just because the other retard was born to it, so he uses his powers to manipulate the retard into making a good decision and putting someone with the brains and power to actually effectively rule in charge and then a totally unqualified kid comes in and makes some absurd claims that he's a prince from some place that as well traveled as Jafar is, he's never heard of. So he does the most logical thing, he gets rid of the kid. A prince won't allow himself to be sent away, they're too proud, so he does what he has to and eliminates the kid for the good of the country. and he's right it turns out that the kid IS a totally unqualified doey eyed peasant who wouldn't know the first thing about ruling effectively. Every decision Jafar makes is one because he knows how rediculously absurd the system of fuedal succession is. And really the worst thing he did was arrange for the death of prince ababah, other then that, he only takes over, and at best humiliates the former sultan who spent years humiliating him with his retardation. Does Jafar have a good alignment or a bad one? could he be good aligned and made one evil decision while everything else he does is well justified?
but no offense because I respect your opinions but you have a list of quantifiable objective acts that are evil yourself that you ennumerated for me earlier in this thread, the only difference is we maybe have a...
I think the difference is that I tried to lay out a flexible list of actions that most cultures/people would consider evil. Clearly not everyone here considers the death of the goblin evil, but we ALL agree that rape is evil, right?
The idea of taking the goblin hostage and delivering it to a court seems cruel and unfair to me. The creature wouldn't understand what was being done, and would likely be displayed before being executed. I wouldn't terrify an animal before I killed it, and really goblins aren't a whole lot better then animals.Bull. Goblins have no penalties to either intelligence or wisdom (they get -2 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Cha). They're as fully capable of understanding the process as the average human is.Well, not quite.
Goblins have the same mental capability to understand human justice, but given the goblin lifestyle where they constantly steal and cheat from each other while the biggest, meanest of them keep a semblance of leadership; trial as the humans see it may be a strange concept to the goblin. I must admit that I am not familiar with the said goblin character's awareness of human culture however.
That being said, I'm not sure if I'd say that "taking the goblin hostage and delivering it to a court seems cruel and unfair" to me.
...but I feel that I'm getting away from the subject here.
[/treadjack]
A mostly illiterate, sociopathic race of tiny little monsters? Their society is so alien to any human society that no, I'd wager they wouldn't get it. These things aren't a crime to them, they don't feel GUILTY. Murder is completely socially acceptable to a goblin.
A mostly illiterate, sociopathic race of tiny little monsters? Their society is so alien to any human society that no, I'd wager they wouldn't get it. These things aren't a crime to them, they don't feel GUILTY. Murder is completely socially acceptable to a goblin.The idea of taking the goblin hostage and delivering it to a court seems cruel and unfair to me. The creature wouldn't understand what was being done, and would likely be displayed before being executed. I wouldn't terrify an animal before I killed it, and really goblins aren't a whole lot better then animals.Bull. Goblins have no penalties to either intelligence or wisdom (they get -2 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Cha). They're as fully capable of understanding the process as the average human is.Well, not quite.
Goblins have the same mental capability to understand human justice, but given the goblin lifestyle where they constantly steal and cheat from each other while the biggest, meanest of them keep a semblance of leadership; trial as the humans see it may be a strange concept to the goblin. I must admit that I am not familiar with the said goblin character's awareness of human culture however.
That being said, I'm not sure if I'd say that "taking the goblin hostage and delivering it to a court seems cruel and unfair" to me.
...but I feel that I'm getting away from the subject here.
[/treadjack]
WAIT.
No. Goblins?!?!? If goblins are as SMART as an AVERAGE human....and they breed super quick....They're the dominant species on your planet then right?
They have every advantage.
No, the reason they're not in charge is they're dumb as a box of rocks. HORSES terrify them. They will abandon a fight to run down a stray dog.
These are clearly not a "thinking" people.
No, the reason they're not in charge is they're dumb as a box of rocks. HORSES terrify them. They will abandon a fight to run down a stray dog.
These are clearly not a "thinking" people.
Let's see... goblins are, what, 3 feet tall? Saying "HORSES terrify them" is as silly as saying "HIPPOS terrify humans" (and if you aren't terrified of a riled hippo, you should be; they kill more people each year than sharks or crocodiles). Dogs are the size equivalent of a large wolf, a bear, or a tiger or lion to a human.
Let's see... goblins are, what, 3 feet tall? Saying "HORSES terrify them" is as silly as saying "HIPPOS terrify humans" (and if you aren't terrified of a riled hippo, you should be; they kill more people each year than sharks or crocodiles). Dogs are the size equivalent of a large wolf, a bear, or a tiger or lion to a human.No, the reason they're not in charge is they're dumb as a box of rocks. HORSES terrify them. They will abandon a fight to run down a stray dog.
These are clearly not a "thinking" people.
Read Classic Monsters Revisited. As a species they have an unfounded fear of horses, and hatred of dogs. No, the closest the author comes to a reason for the hatred of dogs is that they resemble smaller, useless wolves.
Did you SEE the chart of random goblin combat actions? Have you read the book?
Have you read the book?
Have you read their statline? Have you read the module in question?
Again, they have no intelligence or wisdom penalty. The goblin in question was clearly capable of understanding the concept of a truce, which is a fairly high-order concept as such things go. He's interacted with "longshanks" for a while now (I forget the time frame, but it's at least on the order of months) and is at least familiar with the basics of a peaceful relationship with a "longshanks". He has taken council from another goblin who told him exactly what would happen if he attacked the town. He's fully aware of the consequences of his actions, he just thought his side would win.
|
|
I think the difference is that I tried to lay out a flexible list of actions that most cultures/people would consider evil. Clearly not everyone here considers the death of the goblin evil, but we ALL agree that rape is evil, right?
well, that's kinda a loaded question, I personally think it's abhorrent, but then again I don't think that someone who commits rape might feel differently about the subject. I think my list is pretty flexible, also commiting acts on my list isn't forbidden, as I said a player can do them and may not even suffer any consequences for them, doesn't mean they aren't evil. My flexible list happens to include killing helpless sentient creatures.
Have you read the book?Have you read their statline? Have you read the module in question?
Again, they have no intelligence or wisdom penalty. The goblin in question was clearly capable of understanding the concept of a truce, which is a fairly high-order concept as such things go. He's interacted with "longshanks" for a while now (I forget the time frame, but it's at least on the order of months) and is at least familiar with the basics of a peaceful relationship with a "longshanks". He has taken council from another goblin who told him exactly what would happen if he attacked the town. He's fully aware of the consequences of his actions, he just thought his side would win.
That I have not. (statline or module, though I HAVE asked repeatedly what the mod is and haven't been answered). However, I DO know that it's golarion because of the clerics god and I know what Golarion goblins are supposed to be like...
I think the difference is that I tried to lay out a flexible list of actions that most cultures/people would consider evil. Clearly not everyone here considers the death of the goblin evil, but we ALL agree that rape is evil, right?well, that's kinda a loaded question, I personally think it's abhorrent, but then again I don't think that someone who commits rape might feel differently about the subject. I think my list is pretty flexible, also commiting acts on my list isn't forbidden, as I said a player can do them and may not even suffer any consequences for them, doesn't mean they aren't evil. My flexible list happens to include killing helpless sentient creatures.
Clearly, as did my own list...but saying the goblin was "innocent" is likely to be a significant stretch.
From a post by james jacobs;
All goblinoids are Evil.
Goblins are Neutral; they form tribes and bicker sometimes among other tribes but basically just want to run out there and cause mayhem and spread cruelty.
50% THAT.
The module is Pathfinder #1, Burnt Offerings.
From a post by james jacobs;
All goblinoids are Evil.
Goblins are Neutral; they form tribes and bicker sometimes among other tribes but basically just want to run out there and cause mayhem and spread cruelty.
50% THAT.
Please link?
I'm willing to bet a considerable amount of money that Mr. Jacobs did not mean "Every single goblinoid creature in the entire world is some variation of evil alignment". From the snippet you posted here, he's talking about the overall alignment of each species, which fits in with the "usually evil" definition already posted in this thread.
|
|
Clearly, as did my own list...but saying the goblin was "innocent" is likely to be a significant stretch.I think the difference is that I tried to lay out a flexible list of actions that most cultures/people would consider evil. Clearly not everyone here considers the death of the goblin evil, but we ALL agree that rape is evil, right?well, that's kinda a loaded question, I personally think it's abhorrent, but then again I don't think that someone who commits rape might feel differently about the subject. I think my list is pretty flexible, also commiting acts on my list isn't forbidden, as I said a player can do them and may not even suffer any consequences for them, doesn't mean they aren't evil. My flexible list happens to include killing helpless sentient creatures.
UMMM I didn't use the word innocent anywhere in that post.
|
A funny thing about D&D that I have often discussed with my players is that in a D&D world morality is entirely objective. The very planes themselves are made of and run on a system that Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are absolutes that exist and can be both quantified and detected. Therefore in a D&D world, unlike in the real world, the act is always the thing. Animating a skeleton is always an evil act even if you are planning to command it to pet puppies and help out at an orphanage. And showing mercy is always good, even if it is for the most depraved bunny-rabbit-rapist that ever lived (with the exception of Evil outsiders). D&D has a black and white system for what, in real life, is an incomprehensibly complex spectrum of grays. An individual group is certainly welcome to play their game with a more realistic moral scale, involving intent, whether or not the person feels guilty afterward, etc. Personally if I want to explore such concepts in a game I will stick with White Wolf, but to each his own.
In the original situations presented I would rule as follows. The first situation was a highly chaotic, moderately evil act. The alignment and intentions of the victim are irrelevant; he was tricked through the use of magic and false pretenses(chaotic), and murdered while essentially helpless (evil). Killing an enemy in battle is a neutral act. Killing said enemy when he is no longer a direct threat is evil. Enough to make the characters change their alignments to Chaotic Neutral? No, unless they make a habit of such things. Enough to piss off the cleric's Good deity and require atonement? Probably. Enough to put a burr in the paladin's saddle when he wakes up and finds out about it? Certainly.
The second situation was highly chaotic, and petty/short-sighted as well, but not inherently evil. D&D tends to focus on the immediacy of the act, in this case not informing the wizard that the item was cursed, and not the potential long-term consequences, such as the chance that the cursed item will bring further danger to the entire party.
I am currently running Rise of the Runelords myself, and my group just finished Burnt Offerings. One of my PC's a Chaotic Neutral Shoanti Barbarian/Sorcerer, performed an act that I considered evil in the previous session. Without giving out spoilers I will say that a long-standing foe was downed by this PC and the rogue (also CN) out of sight of the rest of the party, who were busy fighting another enemy. The rogue ran back to join in the other fight, but this PC took the opportunity to finish off the fallen foe because said foe had insulted him earlier. According to D&D morality binding the guy's wounds and bringing him in to face justice would have been good (and lawful). Leaving him to bleed out or stabilize on his own would have been neutral. But bashing his head in as he lay unconscious and dying because he was angry at the guy, especially while his friends were risking their lives upstairs, was most definitely evil, and enough to earn him a hefty helping of Wrath for later. ;)
My two cents, hope someone likes them.
I liked them. Thanks!
No. Goblins?!?!? If goblins are as SMART as an AVERAGE human....and they breed super quick....They're the dominant species on your planet then right?
They have every advantage.No, the reason they're not in charge is they're dumb as a box of rocks. HORSES terrify them. They will abandon a fight to run down a stray dog.
These are clearly not a "thinking" people.
I'm not entirely sure how serious you are being...
Two observations though.
Having a particular fear does not imply stupidity. Stick a claustrophobic person in a closet to take a math test and they may fail it, but that's *really* not the same as being 'dumb as a box of rocks'. A claustrophobe could easily have a very high IQ - the phobia is independent of intelligence.
I think you've confused averages with individuals - on average, goblins may have lower INT scores than humans (I'm not even sure if this is true in fact, but I'll assume it for this example), but a particular goblin could have the same INT score as a particular human - in which case they would have the same INT scores!
Using a truce as a front for a sneak attack is always duplicitous and something that good characters shouldn't do - they should always mean it when they offer peace. That's part of what being good is. "Oh, but we're Chaotic Good" - you're still good, and that doesn't excuse it. That's entirely different from being in a pitched fight and using an illusion or distraction to flank or sneak attack an opponent. That fact that players here are saying there's no moral difference between felling a creature in a fight, and offering it healing then attacking it while it's defenseless, just goes to show that some people really need to develop some moral sense.
The whole idea of being Good is that you try to do the right thing, the compassionate thing, the just thing. I wish that didn't have to be explained. People who fight evil using monstrous methods are just as bad as what they oppose.
And now, just for debating's sake:
Something we must remember is that we must work with what we have and, once all is said and done, we're playing a game that's all about killing people to the point that all characters start game either with a pointy stick, a (magical)flamethrower, or training to kill bare-haded.
Alignments might hold regardless of time period, yes, and they hold regardless of whether the game is on a medieval world at least a couple centuries before enlightened humanism spreads all over but... at least for game purposes, is killing evil? If so, then listing alignments on the book is a moot because the whole game is about "being evil"... then again, alignments are listed and we have LG Paladins avilable, so we play in a world where, as a default, killing is okay and the 6th/5th commandment be damned; it's the circumstances of the killing what makes the difference between "okay" and "not okay".
Moderation in everything, follow the RAW like a dogma and you'll be no different from a pharisee. On the other side, you should have the common sense to be able to draw the line of where the end no longer justifies the means.
If you get me to agree to anything when I am drunk, half-asleep, and so on its not a real agreement, because if you knew I would say yes you would not have tried to convince me while I was in that state of mind.Actually that's not true, well, I mean I understand and actually agree its true and we aren't dealing with american law here so kind of invalid for arguments point, but I'm just warning you, in real life, if you make a contract while drunk and half asleep you will be held to that contract in a court of law, legal precedence was set in a case where a neighbor got drunk with a couple and while they were drunk talked them into writing up and signing a contract selling their land to him. The courts upheld the contract when the couple fought it in court, so just don't go thinking you can use that drunk and half asleep to get out of anything. It may be immoral as hell for the person doing the pursuasion, but you'll be held to your actions. Once again, DnD ins't US law so this isn't an argument for the discussion, just an off topic warning to be careful who you trust and what you do while drunk.
I was not speaking from a point of law. It was more a point of ethics. That is why I never used the word legal. My point was that you can't reasonably expect the person to keep that agreement once they come to unless you have a way to force them to do it.
the opponents alignment really dosent matter(unless we are taking demons/undead/dragons and other creatures who have no other option than to be evil).
doing evil stuff to good ppl is wrong, but so is doing evil onto evil ppl... using the opponents alignment as a excuse is that very halemark of evil(since most ppl even if they are evil, will not think of themself as so, instead they will make up excuses for their actions....like i only killed him because he was evil)...
on the other hand trying to redeem others and offering them a 2nd chance, and beliving that people may change if shown the right way, now that is the spirit of a good person and on that acount both actions are evil...unless they somehow served a higher purpos.
a paladin who uses his detect evil as detect target should lose his paladin hood... in fact monst of the time he should offer surender as a option for his opponents.
I don't know. The best stories are the ones where the characters are the most involved, and they're not likely to bend to unrealistic, restrictive prohibitions on human behaviour. It's one of the WORST cases of deus ex machina.I think that most PC's have a higher body count by the end of a campaign then any serial killer in history, and almost none of them EVERY show any REGRET about killing the "bad guys".That's why I think that making parallels between alignments in the game and morality in real life is a very treacherous road...I agree... I just don't see what that has to do with what I said?
I'm all for character involvement, on the contrary. However, my reality is very different form my character's. I don't see myself ending the life (directly or indirectly) of 15 sentient beings before Christmas. However, as you said, my character may kill more creatures than a (real) serial killer over a year. While the tenets of good and evil remain the same, the context is very different. That's why I think that making direct parallels between D&D adventurers and facts from our western, so-called civilized lifestyle is not very helpful in the alignment discussion.
I guess I just don't agree with the idea that alignment is as absolute as it's being posited as. You can't just run off of the RAW description as tangible evidence of character morality, which several of you HAVE said repeatedly. Almost nothing is absolutely quantifiable, and if a character makes what they consider the Right decision, and they have a good justification for it, how could you consider it anything other then a good act?
I definately PREFER expectations to restrictions.
If the planes and beings that exemplify the alignments we're talking about aren't absolutely quantifiable, then how could the alignment be?
There are situations that are unquestionably evil, but there's a LOT of grey that the...
We are not arguing anyone should run alignments by RAW. By RAW the good characters would all seem to fall into the lawful stupid category. We are saying that if you follow the books to a tee good characters are very restricted with what they should or should not do.
Any grey area is covered by the book. Don't commit an evil act no matter what. It seems ridiculous to me which is why I can't DM or play that way.
We are not arguing anyone should run alignments by RAW. By RAW the good characters would all seem to fall into the lawful stupid category. We are saying that if you follow the books to a tee good characters are very restricted with what they should or should not do.Any grey area is covered by the book. Don't commit an evil act no matter what. It seems ridiculous to me which is why I can't DM or play that way.
The RAW does not in any way shape or form say 'Don't commit an evil act no matter what'. What it says is 'A, B and C are evil acts'. It doesn't say 'Good cannot perform an Evil act'. It doesn't even say 'If a Good character performs X Evil acts, they have to change alignment'.
The closest to this is the Cleric and Paladin who have to answer for an Evil act with their god. That is why Atonement exists as a spell. The gray area is for the DM to interpret with regards to whether an Atonement spell suffices, or does the character have to do more than just an Atonement. The gods know mortals aren't perfect, and that situations which are not tenable will occur, and someone is going to commit an Evil act. A good person is genuinely sorry they commited an evil act. They don't deny it was evil, but they felt they had to anyway. That usually means the Atonement by itself suffices. Note that the god doesn't even have to take the powers away if it was an Evil act. That's another part of the Gray area that the DM handles.
The big thing is, if a Pally or Cleric are routinely commiting Evil acts 'for the greater good', are they really? Or are they just doing what is expedient or what they really want to do because they hate X?
|
|
1. There was no truce. I don't get why people keep claiming there is one.
Two of the characters had no intentions of following through with it, the Goblin was being magically forced into it.Charm Person made the Goblin like the party, made it so the Goblin would trust them and made it easy for the goblin to agree to act in a manner it normally would not have.
False. You keep making these erroneous claims about how charm person works. I suggest you go back and read the spell again. It doesn't work anywhere remotely like you claim.
In fact, it would have been perfectly legitimate for the DM to have Ripnugget continue to attack the entire party, even the enchantress, because goblins will attack and kill even their "trusted friends and allies".
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
Yeah it works exactly like I say it does.
It magically forces the Goblin to regard you as its trusted friend and ally. It perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way.
So yes my points stand.
So the Goblin would not consider the party as its friends nor would it perceive thier actions or words in a favorable way.
The truce was magically forced and is not a true truce. (Actually what happened should not have happened, because the party are not the Goblin's friends just the Sorc who cast it.)
We are not arguing anyone should run alignments by RAW. By RAW the good characters would all seem to fall into the lawful stupid category. We are saying that if you follow the books to a tee good characters are very restricted with what they should or should not do.Any grey area is covered by the book. Don't commit an evil act no matter what. It seems ridiculous to me which is why I can't DM or play that way.
The RAW does not in any way shape or form say 'Don't commit an evil act no matter what'. What it says is 'A, B and C are evil acts'. It doesn't say 'Good cannot perform an Evil act'. It doesn't even say 'If a Good character performs X Evil acts, they have to change alignment'.
The closest to this is the Cleric and Paladin who have to answer for an Evil act with their god. That is why Atonement exists as a spell. The gray area is for the DM to interpret with regards to whether an Atonement spell suffices, or does the character have to do more than just an Atonement. The gods know mortals aren't perfect, and that situations which are not tenable will occur, and someone is going to commit an Evil act. A good person is genuinely sorry they commited an evil act. They don't deny it was evil, but they felt they had to anyway. That usually means the Atonement by itself suffices. Note that the god doesn't even have to take the powers away if it was an Evil act. That's another part of the Gray area that the DM handles.
The big thing is, if a Pally or Cleric are routinely commiting Evil acts 'for the greater good', are they really? Or are they just doing what is expedient or what they really want to do because they hate X?
It implies it heavily in BoED. Now that is a splat book, and some may not use it. I referenced it because it is the book on good as BoEd is the book on evil.
Edit: It said a good character that cares about his alignment will not commit an evil act regardless of the consequences.
You're free to commit an evil act, but if you're not playing an evil character, you shouldn't expect there to not be consequences.
It implies it heavily in BoED. Now that is a splat book, and some may not use it. I referenced it because it is the book on good as BoEd is the book on evil.
Edit: It said a good character that cares about his alignment will not commit an evil act regardless of the consequences.
I'll agree with that. A Good character that cares about his alignment wont. One that cares more about others might. That's a consciounce choice. Kind of like, negotiating with kidnappers is bad, it encourages them to kidnap someone else's kid... but they have mine now! It's a morality choice.
I'd personally put it down to the other half of their alignment. A Lawful Good (should) probably refuse to commit the evil act for any reason. A Neutral (should) weigh the consequences and decide based on what feels right to them, or what they think they can live with. A Chaotic would probably go ahead and commit the evil act if they thought it was for the greater good.
Just my view anyway, anyone can do whatever they want in their own game.
It implies it heavily in BoED. Now that is a splat book, and some may not use it. I referenced it because it is the book on good as BoEd is the book on evil.
Edit: It said a good character that cares about his alignment will not commit an evil act regardless of the consequences.
I'll agree with that. A Good character that cares about his alignment wont. One that cares more about others might. That's a consciounce choice. Kind of like, negotiating with kidnappers is bad, it encourages them to kidnap someone else's kid... but they have mine now! It's a morality choice.
I'd personally put it down to the other half of their alignment. A Lawful Good (should) probably refuse to commit the evil act for any reason. A Neutral (should) weigh the consequences and decide based on what feels right to them, or what they think they can live with. A Chaotic would probably go ahead and commit the evil act if they thought it was for the greater good.
Just my view anyway, anyone can do whatever they want in their own game.
It is my view also, and I would ignore my alignment if people's lives were at stake, and I could not think of anything else that would solve the issue, depending on the issue of course.
And for our next never-to-be-resolved debate:
Creationism vs Evolution!!!!
Which one is the one universal truth?
|
It implies it heavily in BoED. Now that is a splat book, and some may not use it. I referenced it because it is the book on good as BoEd is the book on evil.
Edit: It said a good character that cares about his alignment will not commit an evil act regardless of the consequences.
I find it funny you used the same acronym for both books...You mean BoVD.
As for what I say, anything that the Book of Vile Darkness encourages, should probably NOT be something even a chaotic good character should be doing on a long term basis.
Again this is a case study, in no way will these things be expanded upon by the DM as the critical point has already been passed. All we're doing is deciding on what our opinion is, is the act of charming a monster, bluffing it under the pretense of truce into exposing itself, then attacking and killing the monster when he is unarmed and relatively defenseless an evil act?
I think we all agree that the second act is more neutral. The character merely sinned through inaction. Its not a good act, but it most definitely isn't an evil act either.
NG elven ranger
CN human enchantress
CG human cleric of Shelyn...
As the goblin removes his armor, expecting to receive first aid and the restorative power of Shelyn's magic, he is attacked by both the Ranger and Shelyn's priest. The enchantress is disgusted by what they do. A discussion concerning whether this is an evil act ensues. What is your opinion ? Is this an evil act or not?
Don't know if this angle's been covered yet so I apoligize if I'm just repeating something:
Postutlate one: Actively seeking out and killing another sentient creature based purely on it's race isn't inherently evil provided it's done in as humanely a fashion as possible. (i.e. no evil methods to kill, a rapid death, no torture, minimal pain etc.) This is justified not only in game by the paladin's and cleric's abilities functioning at all but in many respects by the very nature of the game world. If it were evil, would not good churches be actively trying to convert and rehabilitate goblinoids?
Postulate two: An inherently evil race is not responsible for it's evilness; it could not have chosen to be good. (Which also seems to be in line with postulate one.)
As a consequence killing a goblin is no different than killing a rabid dog; such a dog is a danger to society and individuals through no fault of it's own. However that doesn't mean anyone else should suffer at it's hands or that people trying to deal with the problem should take unnessecary risks.
As such the act of tricking the warlord to kill it is pretty much amoral. It's no different than luring a rabid dog to a trap with some food or a female dog in heat. At worst I could see a Lawful character objecting on the basis of breaking their word... but that doesn't apply to any of the characters who were concious. (If anything a CN character should have been proud of their companions for taking advanatage of the situation.)
Postutlate one: Actively seeking out and killing another sentient creature based purely on it's race isn't inherently evil provided it's done in as humanely a fashion as possible. (i.e. no evil methods to kill, a rapid death, no torture, minimal pain etc.) This is justified not only in game by the paladin's and cleric's abilities functioning at all but in many respects by the very nature of the game world. If it were evil, would not good churches be actively trying to convert and rehabilitate goblinoids?
Therefore, I can kill any sentient creature, anytime, whenever I want. It's not evil! So long as it's a humane death, I can commit genocide on humans, gnomes, githyanki, genasi, and drow! I can render all sentient species extinct if I want, as long as it's humane!
Sorry, I'm getting silly and snarky and whatnot. My point is that this becomes absurd (don't remember the latin term). If I create a poison that causes drow and elves to fall asleep, never wake up, and quietly pass away of starvation without feeling pain or deprivation in their sleep, I have a situation where I wiped out an evilly-inclined race and a good-inclined race. Without provocation, without reason, just because I could.
Also, good churches do try to rehabilitate and convert other creatures. In some cases, at any rate.
Postulate two: An inherently evil race is not responsible for it's evilness; it could not have chosen to be good. (Which also seems to be in line with postulate one.)As a consequence killing a goblin is no different than killing a rabid dog; such a dog is a danger to society and individuals through no fault of it's own. However that doesn't mean anyone else should suffer at it's hands or that people trying to deal with the problem should take unnessecary risks.
Counterpoint: Goblins are not inherently evil, merely evil in many cases. The goblin in this example is admittedly evil. But as detailed upstream in this thread, goblins are 'usually' evil; this means more than half the time, less than 100% of the time, a goblin you randomly sample will have an evil alignment.
Another point: dogs-are they sentient?Also, take this to its logical conclusion: we need to eliminate every single plant on the planet that creates windborn pollen to prevent people from suffering from hay fever. Also, no one can have fish, citrus, peanuts, milk, or gluten-based foods, as you might be allergic. Food-based allergies are also dangerous to society. As are weaponsmiths (they make things that kill people). So is weather.
As such the act of tricking the warlord to kill it is pretty much amoral. It's no different than luring a rabid dog to a trap with some food or a female dog in heat. At worst I could see a Lawful character objecting on the basis of breaking their word... but that doesn't apply to any of the characters who were concious. (If anything a CN character should have been proud of their companions for taking advanatage of the situation.)
A rabid dog cannot reason. A goblin can. In our case-study we're looking at a goblin that was magically influenced (not compelled, charm person is a charm, not compulsion) and then began to negotiate a truce with a friendly enchantress. When convinced by 2 other party members to remove his armor (and they did it without magic via Bluff), the goblin was set upon while wounded and unarmored, making the goblin far less of a threat than he had been at fight's start. Fighting had ended and communication had been opened. Communication with a being that can think and reason. Goblin society certainly molds goblins to act in certain ways, but goblins still can reason. Negotiation is rather hard without the ability to reason. As a goblin can reason, a goblin can choose how to act based upon experience and circumstances. The goblin chose to trust the enchantress' partners and was betrayed, attacked out of hand by two people the goblin had chosen to trust while in a weakened and vulnerable state.
Overall, I like your postulates; remind me of my philosophy classes. Good times.
You know, I somehow managed to not grasp before now that you were the cleric in question.
To clarify, I wasn't. When I wrote about the OP sharing the tread with his cleric, I was referring to his comments that the cleric's player agreed with pretty much everything I've written. Which, in fairness, is really hard to do. I said (in conversation) just last week that anyone who agrees with everything I say is lying.
So evn though not really a threat, a combat situation is in effect, whic warrants bloodshed. Since the goblin chieftain was no longer actively tryingto engage in combat, he was not an immediate threat. And, in my view, no longer uch of a more general threat to the village either. I certainly wasn't the DM here (you probably knew that, I guess!), but I can't believe the goblin chief would have been dumb enough to immediately attack/invade when the charm wore off. Whether he would ultimately do so is another question.
I just don't see the difference. A few low level goblins that can't hurt you aren't more threatening than a goblin warchief that temporarily believes your party's enchantress is a friend. Even if the goblin warchief ran away, I don't see chasing him down and finishing him off as more evil than letting him go. Since this entire thought was designed to counter the idea that it was evil (to kill the warchief) because he was no longer a threat, obviously even what constitutes a threat is open for debate.
In battle, an illusion to gain a tactical advantage would be an ok tactic for a (chaotic) good character (not sure about lawful, now that I think about it...). As would suggestion, hold, etc. But it would depend a bit on the timing - a coup de grace immediately following a hold spell (before the character could really think about it, and might still be 'in combat' in their mind), I would not consider a problem. After time to deliberate though, I would view it differently.
I dunno. That's dangerously close to saying something like "a barbarian in a rage isn't responsible for his actions durig combat; a rogue that sets up a kill ahead of the fight would be."
What if the illusion was of a cleric of a god of love trying to convince him to take off his armor to be healed? If the character never makes a truce and only an illusion does, is it okay for the character to kill the warchief them?
Part of why I find this all so fascinating is that I've actually run an evil campaign before, for about a year straight, and it remains the best campaign I've ever been involved with as a GM or a player. The players did many terrible things, and something like half of the Gnolls died in the High Forest of Faerun just as pawns in a power struggle between the PCs and a succubus that was actually working with the PCs (they knew what she was) before they literally stabbed her in the back (she wasn't flat-footed because the PC choosing to stab failed a will save for Detect Thoughts as he maneuvered for the attack, which I made the player roll before he even told me he was going to attack her...it ended up saving her life and she just teleported away before anyone could get another attempt in).
Interestingly, we never had a single discussion about alignment through the whole campaign. We had one just prior, but it was only explaining the alignments to one of the players, who was new to D&D.
The only arguments about rule interpretation came on two occasions. One was when I didn't let the wizard, who had polymorphed into an Avariel, fly out of a big hole because there wasn't enough room to maneuver and he couldn't fly straight up. None of them had any rope or climb and they ended up staying down while the wizard rested 8 hours so he could reprepare spells. (He ended up using dimension door several times, as I recall). The other argument was when the party had slaughtered nearly an entire town (for no real reason, in this case) while all the warriors were out hunting or patrolling or something. They left on foot and when the town's patrol returned some time later to find their town ravaged, they followed the tracks and caught up quickly. I didn't want to calculate it all out, looking up the overland movement rules, so I decided on a good amount of time and ruled that the mounted patrol caught up to the party. Since the party was on foot, mostly in heavy armor, and no one was trying to do anything about their tracks (no ranger or druid or anything either), it wouldn't have been tricky. For some reason, though, the wizard's player felt the townfolk should not have been able to make up a couple of hours' headstart. I tried explaining my reasoning for probably around 45 minutes before declaring the argument over by GM fiat (which I hate to do, even moreso during that particular campaign). The townfolk were promptly slaughtered, as they simply weren't anywhere near capable of competing with the PCs (as a town of that size wouldn't have had anyone of an appropriate level). I later went home and did the math only to discover that my quick and dirty guess was wrong. The posse would have caught up to the PCs even faster.
So I've seen inane rule arguments tie up a session before, even with what are otherwise ideal groups. I'm dealing with a paladin in my party now (only a couple sessions in) and the group is bigger and way less experienced at playing. I have to guide this group along; they aren't plotting things to do every time I leave the room. I do consider a mandatory lawful good alignment a big deal, and don't want to give the paladin a free pass to ignore a class restriction. Fortunately he's the kind of player where it's not likely to be an issue.
All of this is part of why I like exploring these issues. I like having answers before the questions are asked. I like having a strong foundation for the ideas even when I haven't anticipated the question. And I like having an understanding of viewpoints other than my own, because people are pretty much never 100% wrong on any divisive issue.
Another line of reasoning people have brought up a few times is the idea that the evil choice is the expedient choice. That's fine if the argument is over killing a bouncer 'cause he won't let you in a club, but killing a goblin warchief that just tried to kill you and has only stopped because of temporary magic is expedient and still not evil. It's not a new argument related to the actual good or evil nature of the act, it's just a tangential line of thinking. There is correlation between evil/chaotic acts, but it is certainly not a causal relationship and plenty of "easy way out" options are lawful and/or good. Like, apparently, just using attack magic against the goblin warlord and not bothering with charm person and lots of roleplaying and bluff rolls. If I had to play in some of your groups, your alignment interpretations would probably discourage my attempts to reason with bad guys. Instead I'd wait until they attacked me and use the self-defense card to justify killing them. I wouldn't tell you I was doing that, though, and if you happen to catch on and try to punish me for not trying to redeem them I'd probably just play Chaotic Neutral and stop worrying about the alignment system or trying to meet those objectives at all.
Almost no characters not dealing with regular installments try that kind of redemption stuff, except for a single family member or childhood friend or something. TV and comics and the like always need more episodes or issues and as such bring the same villains back. Plus they have/had the FCC and the Comica Code Authority limiting what content could be there in the first place. If you want to run a story about redemption and the like, where everyone has insane codes of honor...do what you want. But sometimes you just don't want to play a character that limited, and a party full of them can be a real bore. It's a flavor issue, though, and there's no way I can tell how well any of you might pull it off. If you tell me your players love it, I'll believe you because I have no reason not to. I don't inherently hate the idea, and would even play a character like that now and then. But if someone tells me I'm doing evil when I kill the bad guy and keep my entire party alive, not to mention countless innocents...then maybe I'll just convert to roll-playing.
Of course, as may be obvious here...I had a bad experience. And Jedi are just as lame as Pallies (I specifically remember choosing to run around a blind corner after someone without drawing my lightsaber so as to avoid tempting anger or aggression or some other nonesense), and I wish the GM had just let me play a droid. Or that we, as a group, had committing to giving up on the Jedi Order and just accepted that we'd all end up as Sith. It's easy to see why they were all shot in the back by glorified stormtroopers.
Therefore, I can kill any sentient creature, anytime, whenever I want.
Postutlate one: Actively seeking out and killing another sentient creature based purely on it's race isn't inherently evil provided it's done in as humanely a fashion as possible.
Not at all. What I'm arguing is that the act of hunting and killing something isn't inherently evil based on whether the creature is sentient or not. Otherwise one could argue that ambushing a devil or demon is an inherently evil act... Or do we need to wait until it's sacrifced it's victims in order to confirm that it's actually evil?
Postulate two: An inherently evil race is not responsible for it's evilness; it could not have chosen to be good. (Which also seems to be in line with postulate one.)
Counterpoint: Goblins are not inherently evil, merely evil in many cases. The goblin in this example is admittedly evil. But as detailed upstream in this thread, goblins are 'usually'...
I think that's more a case of GM caveat on the inherent evilness of the creatures. However, if goblins could indeed be redeemed the act of killing their leader through treachery is no more evil than having killed the other goblins the adventurers tracked to their lair and attacked in their home... and if that's not an evil act than their chosen method of offing the leader isn't either.
This has been argued before in the thread, Petrus. In the last 50 posts, even. You're not adding anything new to the discussion other than another source of frustration.
EDIT: That came off sounding much harsher than I intended. I guess what I really mean is that while I understand not wanting to read 400+ posts to contribute to a thread, reading the last page or two is usually a good idea. That way you're at least aware of the most recent directions of conversation.
This has been argued before in the thread, Petrus. In the last 50 posts, even. You're not adding anything new to the discussion other than another source of frustration.
EDIT: That came off sounding much harsher than I intended. I guess what I really mean is that while I understand not wanting to read 400+ posts to contribute to a thread, reading the last page or two is usually a good idea. That way you're at least aware of the most recent directions of conversation.
Fair enough I posted that afer getting to a post talking about inherently evil races... but I still haven't seen any good refutation of this point:
However, if goblins could be redeemed the act of killing their leader through "treachery" is no more evil than having killed the other goblins the adventurers tracked to their lair and attacked in their home...
In which case they've all violated their alignments by commiting an evil deed and setting out to kill the goblins.
However if that's not an evil act, either via the eye for an eye argument or because we don't have moral qualms about killing goblins face to face then their chosen method of offing the leader isn't evil either. It was simply the most expidient way to get there under the circumstances.
You know, I somehow managed to not grasp before now that you were the cleric in question.To clarify, I wasn't. When I wrote about the OP sharing the tread with his cleric, I was referring to his comments that the cleric's player agreed with pretty much everything I've written. Which, in fairness, is really hard to do. I said (in conversation) just last week that anyone who agrees with everything I say is lying.
Ah. Well, then I am humbled for a different reason.... did I mention being distracted by the hot goblin chieftess?
I just don't see the difference. A few low level goblins that can't hurt you aren't more threatening than a goblin warchief that temporarily believes your party's enchantress is a friend. Even if the goblin warchief ran away, I don't see chasing him down and finishing him off as more evil than letting him go. Since this entire thought was designed to counter the idea that it was evil (to kill the warchief) because he was no longer a threat, obviously even what constitutes a threat is open for debate.
So evn though not really a threat, a combat situation is in effect, whic warrants bloodshed. Since the goblin chieftain was no longer actively tryingto engage in combat, he was not an immediate threat. And, in my view, no longer uch of a more general threat to the village either. I certainly wasn't the DM here (you probably knew that, I guess!), but I can't believe the goblin chief would have been dumb enough to immediately attack/invade when the charm wore off. Whether he would ultimately do so is another question.
I think I understand what you're saying. What I meant was that if a goblin attacks you, however pitiful and not ultimately threatening the attack is, it's ok to fight back, even with lethal force. It's combat, even if unmatched. Maybe the goblin could wound you? Maybe it's using poison? It's perfectly acceptable to defend in that case.
The goblin warchief wasn't currently fighting - the combat was effectively over (not a threat). He may well have run away when the charm ended (not a threat). Or tried to gather an armed force for a new invasion (threat).
I dunno. That's dangerously close to saying something like "a barbarian in a rage isn't responsible for his actions durig combat; a rogue that sets up a kill ahead of the fight would be."
In battle, an illusion to gain a tactical advantage would be an ok tactic for a (chaotic) good character (not sure about lawful, now that I think about it...). As would suggestion, hold, etc. But it would depend a bit on the timing - a coup de grace immediately following a hold spell (before the character could really think about it, and might still be 'in combat' in their mind), I would not consider a problem. After time to deliberate though, I would view it differently.
Hmm. I've been rethinking this too since I typed it, and you raise good points here. I don't know. Part of me thinks that coup de grace is not an acceptable 'good' tactic, but that may just be the modern morality talking. I think what's often missing from games is a discussion beforehand of what tactics would be appropriate for which alignments.
What if the illusion was of a cleric of a god of love trying to convince him to take off his armor to be healed? If the character never makes a truce and only an illusion does, is it okay for the character to kill the warchief them?
This is a tricky counter-example! I would say yes, it's ok (for a chaotic character, particularly). The difference with the real situation is that the sorcerer already had effectively subdued the goblin. In the midst of a combat, if the goblin was tricked into taking off his armor, then his bad luck.
Imagine an alternate situation - an armored goblin is sitting peacefully by the road. The PCs approach, and create an illusion that the god of love will reward him with his heart's desire if he removes his armor (assume the goblin is aware of the PCs), and then the PCs attack and kill him. Would that be ok? Would it be ok if the goblin was a known criminal?
If I had to play in some of your groups, your alignment interpretations would probably discourage my attempts to reason with bad guys. Instead I'd wait until they attacked me and use the self-defense card to justify killing them. I wouldn't tell you I was doing that, though, and if you happen to catch on and try to punish me for not trying to redeem them I'd probably just play Chaotic Neutral and stop worrying about the alignment system or trying to meet those objectives at all.
I'm glad you brought this up - I do think this is a possible game-consequence for what I've been describing. I don't know that I have a good answer for it. Off the cuff, I might be ok with this kind of tactic for a chaotic good character. It depends a bit on what the presumed (or agreed on) code of conduct in combat is for a "good" character. Is self-defense still self-defense if you've encouraged the attack or baited your opponent into attacking you? It sounds more like an ambush (maybe ok for chaotic good, if the intent is for good). In other situations using this tactic may pose no issues at all.
If you or your character think it's right to kill bad guys, rather than try to reason with them or bring them to justice, I don't see anything wrong with that in principle, but only for certain alignments, and that may be where you and I differ - with respect to which alignments this is ok for.
But, the relative consequences are also important to consider, and I would certainly think they should be reduced for a good character who kills subdued bad guys with a good intent, over a good character who kills subdued bad guys for either no reason or just to take their stuff.
I"ve played evil before too (lots of fun!), and generally prefer to play neutral or chaotic neutral characters - good is hard. Lawful good is maybe the hardest to play - particularly for a paladin where the consequences extend into their class abilities very quickly. Should it be so hard to be good? Hell if I know - maybe that's a game design decision that could be house-ruled to make it easier.
One final thought, while I don't think "good" or "lawful" etc. should be defined by modern standards, I also think they shouldn't be left undefined in a game, because then I think by default people will tend to use either modern standards or (worse) standards that are much more restrictive than necessary. I may be heading towards that restrictive default in this abstract discussion, since I don't know the setting very well for which the original question was posed. (and, as I mentioned once earlier, it's easier to Monday-morning quarterback this - I would probably make a far less well thought out decision in game, to avoid getting bogged down in the issue.)
Fun to get bogged down in it here though, without the game pressure!
Fair enough I posted that afer getting to a post talking about inherently evil races... but I still haven't seen any good refutation of this point:However, if goblins could be redeemed the act of killing their leader through "treachery" is no more evil than having killed the other goblins the adventurers tracked to their lair and attacked in their home...
In which case they've all violated their alignments by commiting an evil deed and setting out to kill the goblins.
However if that's not an evil act, either via the eye for an eye argument or because we don't have moral qualms about killing goblins face to face then their chosen method of offing the leader isn't evil either. It was simply the most expidient way to get there under the circumstances.
If you look back for posts from me, about 2-3 pages I think, you'll see two quotes, one from the 3.5 MM and one from the Pathfinder Bestiary Preview. Basically, goblins are usually evil (3.5 MM) which means 'Statistically, you have somewhere between 51% and less than 100% of the population being evil'. That means there are some neutral and good goblins too. Probably mostly Neutrals. The pathfinder version is even murkier. It just says that the racial alignment is a majority of the race is this alignment, doesn't go into any details at all. So, unless the race has the Evil subtype (like Devils/Demons) the race is not inherently evil, just a lot of them are.
Whooo... lots of pages added to this heated debate since I last looked at it.
From what I've gathered, it's boiled down to whether the Charm spell changing the Goblin's attitude into a forced friendly one counts as a valid truce or not.
My view of the situation breaks down like this:
The PCs were acting as if the Goblin wasn't friendly, which they knew he wasn't because it was the spell that was altering him that way. There is no betrayal because as soon as the magical effect wore off, the Goblin would no longer feel this way or agree to the things done. Thus they were acting on how the Goblin really felt about the situation, and killed him.
I just want to repeat this, because it's a major point, there is no "Betrayal of Trust", because there was no "non-magical" and thus "real" trust on the Goblin's part.
He only "trusted" because a spell made him do so. There is a difference between using Diplomacy to make someone your friend, and using a mind altering effect: once the mind altering effect ends, the goblin's true feelings would return, and the trust would end.
The Bluff checks were simply a DM's call on allowing the "magical" trust to extend beyond the original caster. This is normally not allowed, but as a DM call, I probably would have done the same. However, trust still ends when the spell ends... it's not like the bluff checks would continue to hold sway over the Goblin after the Charm wore off. Still no "real" trust.
.
Ultimately, I feel the first situation was not a problem with the general layman's Good alignment, and would only be a factor to those that have stricter codes to follow (Paladin and Cleric classes).
In the example instance, with the Cleric of Shelyn, I believe there shouldn't have been an issue on this factor as well.
The Goddess Shelyn preaches (to paraphrase) "True Inner Beauty", desiring the creation of beautiful things, or creating "beautiful" relationships (not just carnal, lustful ones).
She has a NG alignment. Nothing anywhere really points this to being a "to keep balance" Neutral, so it stands to reason that she's ambivilant towards being Lawful or Chaotic in your effort to create Beauty.
In fact, a Goblin Warchief is nothing if a creator of "ugly" relationships (those of power over others, controlling weaker goblins, etc), and a known destroyer of beauty (ending beautiful relationships, etc).
These two things combined make me feel that Shelyn would want her Clerics to go out of their way to kill these creatures as desecrators of Beauty.
She would be upset if the Cleric had broken the attempt at a real relationship (the Goblin was actually changing his ways), however a magically induced relationship is, if anything, another perversion that shouldn't have been either.
If the Paladin were awake at the time, he would have been against the act, or would have threatened to lose his powers had he willingly participated in the act.
The "Code of Conduct" has a specific mention of "acting with honor (not lying, not cheating, etc)". Bending this rule, even against a magically induced target, would mean the Paladin accepts acting in ways that are against the Paladin's code.
Similarly, a Lawful person *might* threaten a change to Neutral Good if he's suddenly okay with non-honorable tactics to reach his target Good goals. It would depend, however, on his feelings regarding Lawful actions against enemies.
A little bit of an aside from the specific-situation discussion...
I am in total agreement with the "alignments are descriptors, not shackles" application.
The PCs, even Paladins and Clerics, should act however they act, and their alignments should be based on their actions.
Regarding how to handle a Paladin who breaks his alignment or code of conduct... it really depends on how the character approaches the break.
Let's take a hypothetical situation to springboard the different approaches:
A Paladin that kills the Innocent would end up losing his powers. The Paladin "Ideal" would prefer everyone die, be judged, and go to the afterlife than have the Paladin break.
Now here's the two approaches to how to handle this:
1. If the Paladin regrets his act, regrets that he had felt it was necessary, and feels he should have done different, then he could see atonement from a divine source.
Likely the atonement would be in the form of finding a way to ressurecting the Innocent, and possibly even bringing the one who facilitated this situation to justice (if he hadn't already).
If, however, the Paladin feels that his action was towards a "Greater Good", and while he feels regret, he felt it was necessary, you have some interesting options available.
2A. You can strip the Paladin of his abilities, and possibly allow retraining of those levels into a new crusader type class (Cleric of a more Neutral or Evil deity, a Justicar type class, etc) or into non-alignment focused levels (Fighter, Ranger, etc).
or, more interestingly...
2B. You can allow the Paladin to keep his abilities. However, the source of his abilities are no longer from his Ideals or Deity, but rather an Evil force (Demon, Deity, etc) that sees the potential for turning to a Blackguard or evil cleric.
This is the most interesting plot, because the character (and even if the player if you do it right), will start down the road of justifying his actions. A really well played Evil force will try to send more and more catch-22 situations to gradually force the Paladin into justifying evil acts to the point of becoming Lawful Evil.
Once the alignment looks like it's good enough to change on a permanent basis, you can have the Evil force appear to the Paladin to present a case for changing abilities.
You could even present the approach in a neutral way, such that the force talking to him speaks in a way that appeals most to the new nature of the Paladin.
Or, you could even go the whole "Is there really even a Good or Evil?" approach and try to convince the Paladin that it's okay to commit evil acts if it gets the result you want.
By this point, the player will know he's turning into a Blackguard, but it's an awesome way to validate corruption of the Paladin.
(Actually what happened should not have happened, because the party are not the Goblin's friends just the Sorc who cast it.)
What happened is what happened. Charm person made him trust the enchantress. The enchantress, in turn, by means of roleplaying (no rules for that, I guess) convinced him that her friends were to be trusted. She was wrong, of course. I have seen some people second-guessing my DMing and that is fine, though I stand by my decision. However whether the decision was right or not has no bearing on the moral debate at hand.