I mean, the way you did it sure, that was evil. Tearing apart dead corpses and torture? Yeah those are bad. But killing a bound prisoner? Not so much. In fact, it's almost a neccesity; what are you going to do, drag all your captured
people through the dungeon / across the countryside?
From PF: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.
Single acts don't make a good person evil, you've got to look at the pattern. And the pattern I'm seeing isn't very good.
It's all well and good for a player (or even PC) to be a bit self-delusional about the morality they're playing out. People rationalize like crazy but it doesn't make them right. As DM, you can treat them the game world sees them. Since the healing magic bit seems a bit strict (too strict I'd say), I'd be pretty strict on the effects of alignment as well. Right now, I'd be treating them as no more good than neutral.
|
Why is it when ever I see a thread like this I just think "Why ask the question?"Enquiring minds want to know!My players are (insert good alignment here) and have (insert obvious evil act here) should they change alignment to evil? They say they aren't evil because they give blood/donate to charity/like puppies and balances out the (insert heinous evil act here).
Yup there are some dubious "evil" acts but some are universally constant. Killing helpless prisoners because its convenent, selling babies to Ed Gein's mother, murder of innocents are a few examples.
Summarily executing prisoners during wartime is not evil...the baby thing, yeah...no argument here. Although the best policy is to not take prisoners.
I remember awhile back an embedded report got footage of a marine puttin two in the head of an insurgent fighter that looked to be wounded and unconcious. There was an uproar claiming this was an "illegal" act, but the fact of the matter is that when clearing a site or a building, two teams sweep through one after the other. It's not until both teams have completed their sweep that the firefight is over. That marine had no idea whether or not the guy was really injured or just faking...better to err on the side of caution.
How does this relate to the killing of prisoners you might ask? If you don't have the resources to maintain incarceration, you are risking your own life and innocent lives by letting them live with a chance to escape. The party's first mistake was taking them alive...executing them, in my opinion, was just performing some cleanup so they could continue with their mission.`
Why is it when ever I see a thread like this I just think "Why ask the question?"Enquiring minds want to know!My players are (insert good alignment here) and have (insert obvious evil act here) should they change alignment to evil? They say they aren't evil because they give blood/donate to charity/like puppies and balances out the (insert heinous evil act here).
Yup there are some dubious "evil" acts but some are universally constant. Killing helpless prisoners because its convenent, selling babies to Ed Gein's mother, murder of innocents are a few examples.
Summarily executing prisoners during wartime is not evil...the baby thing, yeah...no argument here. Although the best policy is to not take prisoners.
I remember awhile back an embedded report got footage of a marine puttin two in the head of an insurgent fighter that looked to be wounded and unconcious. There was an uproar claiming this was an "illegal" act, but the fact of the matter is that when clearing a site or a building, two teams sweep through one after the other. It's not until both teams have completed their sweep that the firefight is over. That marine had no idea whether or not the guy was really injured or just faking...better to err on the side of caution.
How does this relate to the killing of prisoners you might ask? If you don't have the resources to maintain incarceration, you are risking your own life and innocent lives by letting them live with a chance to escape. The party's first mistake was taking them alive...executing them, in my opinion, was just performing some cleanup so they could continue with their mission.`
From PF: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.
|
|
From PF: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.
Well color me evil batman, b/c i don't see anything wrong with killing a prisoner that i cannot be 100% positive i can maintain control over.
One of the major differences between good and evil is the feeling of guilt.
If a character doesn't feel guilty while committing an evil act it means he IS evil.
From PF: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.Well color me evil batman, b/c i don't see anything wrong with killing a prisoner that i cannot be 100% positive i can maintain control over.
Doesn't say about killing a prisoner which you can't maintain control over, that seems okay.
Doesn't say that killing/coup d'grace on an unconcious enemy during combat time is an evil act.
|
From PF: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.I mean, the way you did it sure, that was evil. Tearing apart dead corpses and torture? Yeah those are bad. But killing a bound prisoner? Not so much. In fact, it's almost a neccesity; what are you going to do, drag all your captured
people through the dungeon / across the countryside?
Then every PC, army member, and leader in history is evil.
Face it, this is basically war. We don't have parties of pacifists; these are groups that find the most efficient way to kill opponents; drop magical fire on their heads or slash them apart while Black Tentacles hold them down. I doubt you have qualms with killing someone who is struggling with tentacles.
Further, leaving a trail of defeated enemies can jepordize the mission. You are already acting as judge, jury, and executioner... Why should it be so different if opponents suddeny turn themselves in?
No, what was described was defiling of a corpse and torture, that'ssomething that falls into the grips of evil. But not wanting to figure out how to take Dozens of enemies along, Bound up? That's just a reality. Even the most just paladin would call you silly.
This is the Batman conundrum.
Batman continually captures the Joker, puts him in Arkham, only to have the Joker get out again and kill people.
Batman could just kill the Joker.
But, in a world which assumes that "good" and "evil" are real, he'd be crossing the line if he did so.
The Batman kills the Joker in The Dark Knight Returns.
|
|
This is the Batman conundrum.
Batman continually captures the Joker, puts him in Arkham, only to have the Joker get out again and kill people.
Batman could just kill the Joker.
But, in a world which assumes that "good" and "evil" are real, he'd be crossing the line if he did so.
I think by NOT killing him, he is doing more evil by allowing it to flourish relatively unchecked (he knows the joker is just going to escape and harm more innocents again).
|
Just as an aside on the killing prisoner thing. I've yet to meet a vet of any war that killed and did not carry the burden for his entire life. I talked to a Vietnam vet who had not slept well since 1972 because he macheted a man to pieces. Was he under threat, yep, was it an armed enemy, yep, and he still carried the burden. It told me a lot about him, he was a good man. He knew, his soul knew, killing, no matter how righteous, was not good, and he paid penance for it every day until he died.
Now RPG and logistically speaking, if you are away from civilization and a means to duly process a bad guy, you are not going to set him free, you will have to play the part of judge, jury, and more than likely executioner. Most scenarios in RPGs deal with extreme and obvious situations and thusly the option to dispose of the criminals is easy to make.
Situations like the Shackled City adventures present a more interesting problem. More often than not, my players did not execute or wantonly slay their enemies. They subdued or critically wounded them and returned them to the surface to be processed for their crimes. Of course some creatures, Kazmojen in particular, never seemed to survive =).
From PF: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.I mean, the way you did it sure, that was evil. Tearing apart dead corpses and torture? Yeah those are bad. But killing a bound prisoner? Not so much. In fact, it's almost a neccesity; what are you going to do, drag all your captured
people through the dungeon / across the countryside?Then every PC, army member, and leader in history is evil.
Face it, this is basically war. We don't have parties of pacifists; these are groups that find the most efficient way to kill opponents; drop magical fire on their heads or slash them apart while Black Tentacles hold them down. I doubt you have qualms with killing someone who is struggling with tentacles.
Further, leaving a trail of defeated enemies can jepordize the mission. You are already acting as judge, jury, and executioner... Why should it be so different if opponents suddeny turn themselves in?
No, what was described was defiling of a corpse and torture, that'ssomething that falls into the grips of evil. But not wanting to figure out how to take Dozens of enemies along, Bound up? That's just a reality. Even the most just paladin would call you silly.
I'm not suggesting it the rules are!
The key phrase is "if doing so is convenient".The rules aren't saying that hacking up orcs because they are attacking villages is evil. What they are saying is if the orcs surrender and just killing them because your Paladin can't be bothered to worry about "justice seem to be done" then he has a problem.
Same with enemy soldiers (in a fantasy setting), if a LG ruler goes to war and hasn't been @r$ed to think about what to do with surrendering enemies other than killing them, because its convenient, then he ain't LG.
Being good isn't an easy road.
I mean, the way you did it sure, that was evil. Tearing apart dead corpses and torture? Yeah those are bad. But killing a bound prisoner? Not so much. In fact, it's almost a neccesity; what are you going to do, drag all your captured
people through the dungeon / across the countryside?I have a Paladin of Chiliax that won't allow surrender for this very reason, though he at least won't bound them. He informs them their life was forefit when they signed up with X evil overlord, and they may as well die fighting. Compassion and good aren't always hand-in-hand.
No one said being good was easy. It may be a downright pain in the ass, but that's the price you pay to call yourself good, rather than neutral or even evil. Killing prisoners because it's more convenient to you isn't really a good act.
Compassion is the cornerstone of good, in my opinion. You can be lawful and give surrendered foes a chance to fight, but if they won't fight and you kill them anyway, it's not a good act. In your example, the paladin would be good if he told citizens of Nazi Germany that their lives were forfeit because their leader was Hitler, then proceeded to slaughter them. Individuals don't always match the alignment of their leaders, and some may have been unaware of their evil or unable to choose NOT to follow that leader (family as hostages and suchlike arguments).
It comes down to what the DM rules, but I wouldn't let a paladin retain his lawful good alignment if he systematically slaughtered people who had surrendered, especially if, as you mentioned, it's for the simple reason that it's inconvenient to deal with them otherwise.
From PF: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.Well color me evil batman, b/c i don't see anything wrong with killing a prisoner that i cannot be 100% positive i can maintain control over.Doesn't say about killing a prisoner which you can't maintain control over, that seems okay.
Doesn't say that killing/coup d'grace on an unconcious enemy during combat time is an evil act.
I agree, killing someone who you will believe will continue to do harm to others despite your best efforts i do not believe is evil. If batman killed the joker past like their second encounter, it wouldnt be an evil act. It is evil if you kill a prisoner for your convenience, not to prevent further evil.
The prison gaurd who shoots the escaping murderer is not committing an evil act. It is not particularly good, probably more lawful neutral, but it is not evil.
The guard who kills the prisoner because he wont sell out his boss, confess his crimes, or is particularly annoying during lunchtime is committing an evil act.
Killing a helpless prisoner is an evil act, no matter what. You may be serving the ‘greater good’ by killing the individual, but killing someone who is defenseless is still evil. The question becomes “Are you willing to be evil for the greater good?”
Think The Operative from Serenity. He honestly felt what he was doing was for the good of everyone, even though he knew his acts were evil.
Lawful evil.
To those claiming intent matters, if that's the case, then nobody is evil. Nobody thinks of themselves as being evil save for sociopaths, who still don't, but they just don't care.
Lawful evil is someone who does "what has to be done" for the good of their country, even if that something is horrible, evil, and depraved. Torturing enemies in order to intimidate others? That's evil.
You can have good intentions and still do evil things.
For the record, Nazi Germany, depending on the era, the Roman Empire, and Soviet Russia are good examples of overall lawful evil societies.
And the Mongols not being evil? This is the horde that basically provided all the inspiration for the chaotic evil orcs.
Oh yes, and war is a neutral act at heart. Soldiers in war can be good or evil, and likewise commit good or evil acts, but the act of being in a war itself isn't evil. Those that wage war, on the other hand, can very much be either good or evil.
Killing a helpless prisoner is an evil act, no matter what. You may be serving the ‘greater good’ by killing the individual, but killing someone who is defenseless is still evil. The question becomes “Are you willing to be evil for the greater good?”What about casting sleep during a fight then doing a coup de grace?
I don't want be to a pain, but I'm interested to see if other GM were less lenient than me...
Evil act. He's out of the fight, you could tie him up and bring him back to town with you to stand trial. Is it practical? Hell no, but being good rarely is.
Killing a helpless prisoner is an evil act, no matter what. You may be serving the ‘greater good’ by killing the individual, but killing someone who is defenseless is still evil. The question becomes “Are you willing to be evil for the greater good?”
Think The Operative from Serenity. He honestly felt what he was doing was for the good of everyone, even though he knew his acts were evil.
I dont agree with you there, but then again alignment is insanely subjective. My prime example is capital punishment evil? The person is helpless, and you are killing them. I dont think it is evil, the morality is most assuredly debatable, but I think it is a neutral act.
Batman killing the joker after the 5th time he's escaped arkham and hurt/killed innocents is not an evil act to me, and never will be. Preventing evil is not evil. Batman acted to defend the jokers future victims. As long as he does not do so lightly, he is not evil.
A battered woman kills her abusive husband in his sleep. He is helpless, she killed him. That does not inherantely make it an evil act. This is not a black and white issue as people seem to claim it is. The circumstances matter, and must be interpreted individually.
Good characters try to prevent evil and have respect for life. Respect for life is different from holding it inviolet. If a character kills when given sufficient cause, it is not evil.
Edit: By the way doesnt everyone know by now that batman is all alignments at all times? You would think after the billionth forum discussion on alignment that he was involved in we would realize this by now.
|
|
In these worlds being described, PCs who don't accept all surrender, bind the dying so they don't bleed out, and rely on massive tricks (entangling opponents and slaying them while they are down) is evil. I guess that is a perspective, but I'm going to say you don't actually play that way... Good is defined by those who attempt to aid others with little personal gain, don't avertly lie, and don't do acts such as torture. That's the way every GM rules it. I have seen those who criticize denial of surrender on a paladin, to them I point out I am honest and justice is also part of the Pally code.
This is yet another one of those questions that make me wish Paizo had gone the 4th Ed route and just removed alignment. I see it as a roleplaying blocker, and have never seen it improve a campaign. Sadly, too many spells and class abilities revolve around it.
|
|
For me it depends on location and general environment. City encounter and a bunch of thugs, yep evil. Those lovely giantkin in RothRL, nope, neither good or bad, simply a sound tactic.
At our table we call that tactic, and any that involve killing sleeping creatures, “Doing the Samurai” in honor of a player who thought that his Samurai killing a sleeping guard was honorable (Yes the whole honorable thing opens up yet another can of worms =). Mind you that the act was considered so heinous that we still reference the occasion over five years later =).
I like to get players thinking about morality. It's fun (for me, not for them). One probably shouldn't think about the lesser evils (think of how many "heroes" have invaded others' homes, slain them in the process, and then carted off all of their belongings), but the greater evils are definitely good fodder for game situations.
I repeatedly run into the "should we kill our prisoner that we captured in the middle of nowhere or should we let them go free to do more evil?" argument. The PCs want to be practical, but being practical is not necessarily the "right thing to do." My players argue absolutes (if it goes free it will do evil again!) but given that alignments are prone to changing and intelligent individuals can make their own decisions, who knows if that is the case?
I recently played a rogue who did a bad deed to a prisoner because they refused to answer any questions no matter what we threatened/roleplayed. The DM (rightfully) drew the line and said I had stepped over the bounds of what a good character would do. My character wound up atoning for it, but ever since then has had a reputation as being quite cutthroat.
But to tie him up you have to move him, which would wake him up.That's been a pretty standard tactic from level 1-2 sorcerers in my games, coupled with a longspear with its x3 crit multiplier...
No it wouldn't it takes a standard action to shake a person affected by the sleep spell awake. So long as you aren't punching them in the face while you tie them up it shouldn't wake them up.
No it wouldn't it takes a standard action to shake a person affected by the sleep spell awake. So long as you aren't punching them in the face while you tie them up it shouldn't wake them up.
But to tie him up you have to move him, which would wake him up.That's been a pretty standard tactic from level 1-2 sorcerers in my games, coupled with a longspear with its x3 crit multiplier...
Slaping/wounding a sleeping creature wakes them. Noise does not. That much is in the spell.
Moving them around to tie them up is in that realm we call dm discretion.
Batman killing the joker after the 5th time he's escaped arkham and hurt/killed innocents is not an evil act to me, and never will be. Preventing evil is not evil. Batman acted to defend the jokers future victims. As long as he does not do so lightly, he is not evil.
A battered woman kills her abusive husband in his sleep. He is helpless, she killed him. That does not inherantely make it an evil act. This is not a black and white issue as people seem to claim it is. The circumstances matter, and must be interpreted individually.
Good characters try to prevent evil and have respect for life. Respect for life is different from holding it inviolet. If a character kills when given sufficient cause, it is not evil.
Under this assumption is John Travolta's Character in "Swordfish" Lawful Good? He is doing this to save innocent lives, even if he has to kill a few people. And he doesnt want to hurt people unnecessarily but he is willing to sacrifice for the greater good. His end goal is Good but he is willing to do anything to get there, what would most people say his alignment is?
There's never going to be a concrete answer. In the end the real answer to what is good an evil falls down to whatever the GM thinks. However, seeing as how the OP was a GM asking for opinions I see no harm in answering him. He can see the argument from many sides and decide what he believes.
Again, this thread is going down the path that so many similar threads have gone done.
People don't and never will agree on what is "good"/"evil". That's what makes these kinds of threads so problematic.
I agree.
However whilst people can't seem to agree what it is the PF rules are clear:Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
|
|
The Batman kills the Joker in The Dark Knight Returns.Actually if I recall correctly the Joker was paralyzed from some toxins on the batarangs but had enough muscle control to snap his own neck just to screw over Bats with the police on the way...
Close - actually, as they were struggling, Joker began stabbing Batman in the gut over and over again. Batman grabs his neck and twists, doing just enough damage to drop the Joker but not kill him. Joker mocks him for "not having the nerve" to go all the way, then
"With a devil's strength, he twists..." thus finishing the job and snapping his own neck.
This sort of stuff i've come accross as a player, and as main healer in group i continually warned my group that, being lawful good living saint(back in 3.5) i wouldn't stand for it. In end my character left the group because they refused to acknowledge that killing helpless be they evil or not, is still an evil act. A good person doesn't kill unless forced to do so, will hand them over to authorities, ect but won't kill needlessly my one groupies excuse was " i'm neutral so its ok" no no and no! i am sorry being neutral doesnt give you access to commit evil because it suits you. unless maybe your chaotic neutral and border line crazy anyway! One of best games i've had ruined because others didn't get that evil is as evil does... and if your doing as evil do, then no one who is good will continue to help you no matter your reasons.
Edit: ras al ghoul was lawful evil, he wanted to do good things(or so he believed) but he was willing to slaughter entire nations yet he had a morale code all his own, and did believe in what he was doing. definatly lawful evil or borderline lawful neutral.
I would say CN at best..but my 1st thought was NE..do whatever you need to do for what you need/want at the time.
What alignment would you give Ras al Ghul from Batman Begins?
Neutral Evil.
To be the Devil's advocate, Ras is doing what he is doing in the movie because he wants to achieve an altruistic goal - he sincerely believes that he is removing a disease so that good people can live a good life.
His goals, as such, are no different from the typical PC party who go killing Orcs. Ras' entire goal is getting rid of bad people.
I agree, whats being discussed is what alignment they are, there are bad guys like this all over. Where so you classify them. Also what if i wanted to play a character like this, what alignment would i be?
When you will do absolutely anything to further your goals, you are evil. Mutilating corpses, killing helpless prisoners, trading babies to the obviously evil, and lying to the crippled are all evil acts.
This is an absurd question. That character isn't remotely chaotic good and if he'd started as Chaotic Neutral I'd still warn him that he was entering downright evil territory. As nominally CG, I'd have to ask him, "Are you sure a good character would do that?"