In a recent game I ran, the Party, or more precisely, the party's cleric (of Gorum) supposedly CN, and the sorcerer (who is evil), caught two tieflings with their pants down (litterally). Well, the cleric demands that the two naked (male and female) tieflings pick up their weapons and fight him. They refuse. They try to surrender instead but this isn't accepted. He's a huge and intimidating character (See for yourself) and they could see that fighting him would be their undoing. They tried to escape and nearly managed to, by jumping out the windows. Without hesitating, the cleric drew his cross-bow and shot the male in the back. The ranger that was downstairs is allerted to the problems and spots the running fugitives and pops an arrow more in the back of the tiefling, stopping him (he claimed he could not tell whether they were armed or not...). The female tiefling stops and and try to stabilize her lover. While she's doing this the party moves up to the two tieflings. Again she tries to surrender and to save her loved one. When the cleric arrives at the scene he grabs his greatsword and cuts her in half. End of story!
Additional info: The tiefling were a part of a murderous gang and unquestionably evil.
But was this act not a wee bit on the evil side? My player claims it was not, and that it would be well within what would be expected by a cleric of Gorum, being CN and all..
What say you to yet another philosphical debate concerning good vs. not so good?
Oh! And sorry for the long story. It all helps to understand the situation, right? ;-)
Text
I think attacking an unarmed creature that tries to surrender is under most circumstances evil.
In this case, considering the information given, it's evil. However, I don't think that single act would be enough to alter the alignment, and I don't think it's fully unreasonable for a chaotic neutral character of an evil god to sometimes do evil actions.
Killing an unarmed creature that tries to surrender isn't evil, it's chaotic. Whether or not the creature deserves it is a question of good and evil. It sounds to me like the pair was plenty evil and killing them was justifiable.
Killing an unarmed creature that tries to surrender isn't evil, it's chaotic.
For sentient creatures that aren't "always evil", I think it's fairly evil, unless they've repeatedly escaped capture before.
I can't see a chaotic good character doing it, but I could see a lawful evil character doing it.
They had just cleaned out the bandits hideout. These two were caught asleep, in each-others arms, they had previously heard "activity" from that room. They had just encountered them, so there were no history of escape-attempts. And okay, they had dropped Darkness and made some fairly lucky sneak attacks on the sorcerer, bare-handed mind you. The sorcerer was very, err...? annoyed and wanted revenge more than anything.
But she was indeed trying to surrender, repeatedly. Ah, wel... :-)
|
They had just cleaned out the bandits hideout. These two were caught asleep, in each-others arms, they had previously heard "activity" from that room. They had just encountered them, so there were no history of escape-attempts. And okay, they had dropped Darkness and made some fairly lucky sneak attacks on the sorcerer, bare-handed mind you. The sorcerer was very, err...? annoyed and wanted revenge more than anything.
But she was indeed trying to surrender, repeatedly. Ah, wel... :-)
So they (the baddies) were part of a marauding band, they initiated combat by blinding the party, then sneak attacked the sorcerer? Surrender or no i woulda killed them without a second thought. I mean, at least the PCs let them "finish," right?
Yes, they were part of a marauding band, yes, they could have just dropped the darkness and fled instead of hitting the poor sorcerer... But all that happened after their attempt to surrender fell on deaf ears... It's not black and white, I know, and as it stands I'll pro'lly just let it pass, but the cleric does show some homocidal tendencies, but he haven't acted on them... yet ;-)
They had just cleaned out the bandits hideout. These two were caught asleep, in each-others arms, they had previously heard "activity" from that room. They had just encountered them, so there were no history of escape-attempts. And okay, they had dropped Darkness and made some fairly lucky sneak attacks on the sorcerer, bare-handed mind you. The sorcerer was very, err...? annoyed and wanted revenge more than anything.
But she was indeed trying to surrender, repeatedly. Ah, wel... :-)
Well, in that case I'd say it's neither evil nor good. It's a perfectly understandable choice. I understood it as though these individuals were just part of an evil group and evil individuals, with no history with the PCs.
|
Not very becoming of a cleric of Gorum.
Dude, Gorum would smite that cleric! Not for being evil, as a CN God he really doesn't care if you murder babies or whatever, but killing an unarmed prisoner is blasphemy in the God of War's eyes. Dude, he's stripped of powers for that. In fact, this exact situation is detailed in Gorum's info in Gods and Magic.
|
|
I agree with you.Not very becoming of a cleric of Gorum.Dude, Gorum would smite that cleric! Not for being evil, as a CN God he really doesn't care if you murder babies or whatever, but killing an unarmed prisoner is blasphemy in the God of War's eyes. Dude, he's stripped of powers for that. In fact, this exact situation is detailed in Gorum's info in Gods and Magic.
I know, and I like you for that now, internet-friend.
EDIT:
Just to clarify, I was expounding on what you meant by "not very becoming".
What is with all the threads asking about if a character is evil? The opinion of people on the internet don't matter. What matters is if the people in your group can come to a consensus on what good and evil mean in your game. Getting support from the interwebs means nothing.Its in fashion these days, before that was the whole rave about how subpar multiclassing is (poor Eldritch knight)
I'm going to go make believe that I'm a trend setter now. :)
Killing an unarmed creature that tries to surrender isn't evil, it's chaotic. Whether or not the creature deserves it is a question of good and evil. It sounds to me like the pair was plenty evil and killing them was justifiable.
So murdering a couple of people is perfectly cool as long as they are evil?
here is a few questions that need answering, have the teiflings killed before? if they escape would they kill again? if they were to be taken to the courts would they have been executed?
if the answers to these questions are yes even if 2 of these questions answer yes then the act is not evil.
now the really big question is if the cleric considered these questions before acting, if not then he simply wanted to kill and that is an evil act.
remember no one evil act makes you evil, only if you act evil most of the time are you an evil character.
|
|
No question about it. A completely Evil act and completely dishonorable to Gorum. Big bad Sorcerer being sneak attacked with non-lethal damage and got pissy.
And a consensus in the party of what is evil or not is nothing more than twisting morals to justify your actions when you know you were wrong.
here is a few questions that need answering, have the teiflings killed before? if they escape would they kill again? if they were to be taken to the courts would they have been executed?
The question isn't what others would do -- it's what you did. You can't control others (without magic) -- only yourself.
Even magics that predict the future are fraught are inaccurate at best so to base your current actions on the *possibility* that someone else will do something in the future is false, and using someone's past as the only judge for your actions is taking your self control and granting it to others -- however since you are not a reactionary force and therefore must control your own actions this isn't possible and is also a false measure to judge actions on.
What courts would do doesn't grant you clemency for what you did -- you are not the court, there was no trial and this doesn't even cover the question of who's courts or by what laws they are tried. What someone else's actions would be in the situation (which is the question you bring up here "WWJD" basically) doesn't matter -- it's your actions, your choices, your responsibility.
Simply considering the repercussions of your actions doesn't absolve you of guilt for your actions -- it simply means you are more aware of the rewards and punishments your action brings.
"I was sorry the whole time I did it." Doesn't mean you didn't do it or you don't deserve your punishment for doing it.
You wouldn't say "I was sorry the whole time I did it," as explanation for doing something good, and it is not an excuse for doing something evil.
here is a few questions that need answering, have the teiflings killed before? if they escape would they kill again? if they were to be taken to the courts would they have been executed?The question isn't what others would do -- it's what you did. You can't control others (without magic) -- only yourself.
Even magics that predict the future are fraught are inaccurate at best so to base your current actions on the *possibility* that someone else will do something in the future is false, and using someone's past as the only judge for your actions is taking your self control and granting it to others -- however since you are not a reactionary force and therefore must control your own actions this isn't possible and is also a false measure to judge actions on.
What courts would do doesn't grant you clemency for what you did -- you are not the court, there was no trial and this doesn't even cover the question of who's courts or by what laws they are tried. What someone else's actions would be in the situation (which is the question you bring up here "WWJD" basically) doesn't matter -- it's your actions, your choices, your responsibility.
so would you have killed them?
so would you have killed them?
No. I would have accepted the surrender.
As the character in question:
No. I would have accepted the surrender -- to kill such as them in this manner goes against the teaching of Gorum (as mentioned earlier) they aren't worth killing.
i normally play CN characters who don't really worship and god nor do i ever really play clerics so i guess i understand your point, i would still say in it of itself the act is not evil enough to change your alignment.
i normally play CN characters who don't really worship and god nor do i ever really play clerics so i guess i understand your point, i would still say in it of itself the act is not evil enough to change your alignment.
Is it murder?
Yes. The two tried to surrender twice... they went to extreme non violent measures to escape. In fact one purposefully stopped escaping to try and save the other. These are good acts (self sacrifice for the good of another, nonviolence in the face of certain attack, attempts for non-violent solutions to the issues). The players don't actually know the two individuals -- they found them in an odd place but other than that the two have done nothing to warrant attack, offered no resistance, and (because it can't be stressed enough) surrendered... twice not once attacking. There is no reason to suspect they would try to escape, or reason to suspect them of doing anything other than loving each other. These deaths were unnecessary... Murder.
Is murder good?
No.
Was the murder necessary?
No. Surrender was offered twice, and the two tried to escape. Either of those three opportunities gave means for death and violence to be avoided.
So is the act good?
No. In fact it wasn't even neutral -- this wasn't self defense, this wasn't lawful execution (quick note: lawful execution from a CN character?!?!?!?!), it wasn't a necessary evil -- it was a purposeful and wanton action of violence for the sheer joy of the act of violence -- and that is evil.
This is a great opportunity for the cleric to be judged by his god. Don't pass it up.
The group will all be forced to think about alignment, and you may end up with a gimped cleric until he atones.
Insert your understanding of "how alignment works" here. It's good for everybody.
If you knew for certain that they were completely evil, then it might slide to a chaotic act of vigilante justice.
But since they displayed good tendencies in their attempt to escape, they showed that there was some good in them. That blows the vigilante justice thing out of the water.
As someone who is playing a cleric of Gorum(A CG one no less), once they tried to surrender, they became unworthy to receive my blade.
If I was CE, I would have killed them to rid myself of the annoyance of having to keep them as prisoners, but I would have used a butcher's knife, not a true weapon of war.
If I was CN, I would have just left, and let the party deal with them, because they are non-combatants, and thus no longer anything I care about.
Since I am CG, I would have made sure they were not mistreated as prisoners, and turned them over for trial or maybe tried to turn them into warriors for a better cause to redeem themselves.
Evil act. Period.
You murdered two noncombatants who were trying to both escape and surrender.
Also extremely uncourageous, and any god of strength and battle worth his salt would sneer and deride such a cowardly act.
|
|
Evil act. Period.
You murdered two noncombatants who were trying to both escape and surrender.
Also extremely uncourageous, and any god of strength and battle worth his salt would sneer and deride such a cowardly act.
Their lives were forfiet when they joined a gang of murderous thugs, then initiated combat with the party in question. They got what they deserved and there was no evil in the act.
So murdering a couple of people is perfectly cool as long as they are evil?
They're not just any "couple of people". They're evil murderers which the player thought were deserving of death. As a chaotic character, he did not trust the law to properly punish them so he did it himself, and even gave them a chance to fight back. When they tried to surrender, he probably saw that as an act of cowardice, being a cleric of a god of war and all, and killed them.
To me, the player acted perfectly in character.
Thats the thing the two lovebirds didnt initiate combat but were caught in the middle of the act of lovemaking. The Cleric of gorum acted like a pure coward. I can see Gorum, Shelyn and Calistria taking Vengence on this sot.Their lives were forfiet when they joined a gang of murderous thugs, then initiated combat with the party in question. They got what they deserved and there was no evil in the act.Evil act. Period.
You murdered two noncombatants who were trying to both escape and surrender.
Also extremely uncourageous, and any god of strength and battle worth his salt would sneer and deride such a cowardly act.
What was a cleric of war to do in his situation? He wanted to kill them and offered them a chance to pick up their weapons and have a fair fight. They refused.
What would you have done in his shoes that you think matches his alignment and the 'teachings of Gorum'?
Their lives were forfiet when they joined a gang of murderous thugs, then initiated combat with the party in question. They got what they deserved and there was no evil in the act.Evil act. Period.
You murdered two noncombatants who were trying to both escape and surrender.
Also extremely uncourageous, and any god of strength and battle worth his salt would sneer and deride such a cowardly act.
What a fantastically evil way to justify murder :3c
They didn't initiate combat. The cleric came across them, they tried to surrender, and the cleric attacked them. Then they tried to escape and the male was murdered. The female ran back, disregarding her own life, and begged the PCs to spare her. And the PCs murdered her.
No, it's evil, flat out. It's murder. They cut down a noncombatant begging for their lives. That's the kind of thing BBEGs do to families of PCs. When your PCs are imitating BBEG behavior, just a note it's not good behavior.
Thats the thing the two lovebirds didnt initiate combat but were caught in the middle of the act of lovemaking. The Cleric of gorum acted like a pure coward. I can see Gorum, Shelyn and Calistria taking Vengence on this sot.Their lives were forfiet when they joined a gang of murderous thugs, then initiated combat with the party in question. They got what they deserved and there was no evil in the act.Evil act. Period.
You murdered two noncombatants who were trying to both escape and surrender.
Also extremely uncourageous, and any god of strength and battle worth his salt would sneer and deride such a cowardly act.
What was a cleric of war to do in his situation? He wanted to kill them and offered them a chance to pick up their weapons and have a fair fight. They refused.
What would you have done in his shoes that you think matches his alignment and the 'teachings of Gorum'?
Let them go, tie them up, etc, etc.
Gorum is the god of combat, not wanton slaughter. If the people in question surrender and don't want combat, it's not under Gorum's stance to simply murder them. That's the stuff of pathetic assassins and thieves who can't stomach a true fight.
Incidentally, wishing to wantonly slaughter others isn't the kind of behavior a cleric of Gorum should have in the first place, not is it CN behavior.
Thats the thing the two lovebirds didnt initiate combat but were caught in the middle of the act of lovemaking. The Cleric of gorum acted like a pure coward. I can see Gorum, Shelyn and Calistria taking Vengence on this sot.Their lives were forfiet when they joined a gang of murderous thugs, then initiated combat with the party in question. They got what they deserved and there was no evil in the act.Evil act. Period.
You murdered two noncombatants who were trying to both escape and surrender.
Also extremely uncourageous, and any god of strength and battle worth his salt would sneer and deride such a cowardly act.
What was a cleric of war to do in his situation? He wanted to kill them and offered them a chance to pick up their weapons and have a fair fight. They refused.
What would you have done in his shoes that you think matches his alignment and the 'teachings of Gorum'?
Let them go, tie them up, etc, etc.
Gorum is the god of combat, not wanton slaughter. If the people in question surrender and don't want combat, it's not under Gorum's stance to simply murder them. That's the stuff of pathetic assassins and thieves who can't stomach a true fight.
Incidentally, wishing to wantonly slaughter others isn't the kind of behavior a cleric of Gorum should have in the first place, not is it CN behavior.
They 'wantonly slaughtered' people themselves which the character didn't like. Let them go? Seriously? So they could go out and murder again? Tie them up? And then what? Hand them over to the authorities? Doesn't sound very chaotic to me. Chaotic characters take the matters into their own hands because they don't trust the authorities to do it.
He came in and instead of attacking them while they were defenseless he gave them a chance to pick up their weapons and have a fair fight. They refused and tried to surrender, so he killed them.
Like I said earlier, there is nothing good about what he did, but I don't see anything evil about it either.
Only one more question. If they had handed them over to the authorities, what would have happened? They would have been hung. Would that have been an evil act? Instead, he cut out the middleman and did it himself.
I'll admit I'm not up to snuff with the gods of Golarion and their policies, so I was probably wrong about the policies of Gorum. I still think offering them a chance of a fair fight was the right thing to do as a follower of a god of war, but whatever.
They 'wantonly slaughtered' people themselves which the character didn't like. Let them go? Seriously? So they could go out and murder again? Tie them up? And then what? Hand them over to the authorities? Doesn't sound very chaotic to me. Chaotic characters take the matters into their own hands because they don't trust the authorities to do it.
He came in and instead of attacking them while they were defenseless he gave them a chance to pick up their weapons and have a fair fight. They refused and tried to surrender, so he killed them.
Like I said earlier, there is nothing good about what he did, but I don't see anything evil about it either.
First off, guess what? It doesn't matter what they did. Crazy, I know, right? But slaughtering helpless and surrendering people - even enemies - is an evil act. Evil is supposed to be the easier path. Being the good guy isn't the default.
Second, reread your second paragraph. "They tried to surrender, so he killed them." I want you to read that five more times, and then explain to me how you could use that sentence to describe someone that isn't evil.
Third, Gorum isn't the god of mindless slaughter. He doesn't care about anything outside of pure battle. If the person isn't in battle with you - and someone surrendering isn't - then you don't murder them. That's a giant violation against Gorum. If they're surrendering, they've already lost against your strength. That's sorta the whole point to being intimidating.
Fourthly, "They tried to surrender, so he killed them." Again, that's BBEG behavior. That's the thing the evil lich does to the family of the PC, spurring them into adventure. It's evil.
/threadjack
This discussion reminds me of a situation that came up in a 3.5 game. I was a NG druid in a party of 6 PC's. One of the other members was an elven ranger with gnoll as favored enemy. We just happened to be in a dungeon partially controlled by gnolls and had cleared out the part of the dungeon that the gnolls couldn't penetrate. We needed to get through the gnolls' area and managed to parley our way in to the gnoll leader's room (along with a bunch of other gnolls).
The gnolls thanked us for clearing out their enemies, and dubbed us "gnoll friends." This made my "let's all get along" druid very happy. It pushed the ranger over the edge. She assassinated the gnoll leader on the spot (ranged attacks in a surprise round) and nearly got us all killed as we had to fight our way out of the heart of the gnoll lair. My druid gave her a stern lecture later on, but I think she felt what she did was justified (based on her character background and favored enemy status).
/end threadjack
It is interesting the defenses some people will claim for their inappropriate actions.
|
/threadjack
This is why I think Favored Enemy should be adjusted to something like Chosen Quarry. While it is most often considered the training of someone in ways of killing a hated foe, it doesn't have to be so.
I played a dwarven ranger/wizard with Favored Enemy: Human as a scholar of his people who had studied the ways of humans to be a better emissary between their peoples. I could easily see a local sheriff having FE: Human because he's spent so much time interacting with them, knowing when someone is hiding something, and just how to hit a crook to take them down quicker.
Hatred of a favored enemy is a stereotype that needs to be broken.
/threadjack
This is why I think Favored Enemy should be adjusted to something like Chosen Quarry. While it is most often considered the training of someone in ways of killing a hated foe, it doesn't have to be so.
I played a dwarven ranger/wizard with Favored Enemy: Human as a scholar of his people who had studied the ways of humans to be a better emissary between their peoples. I could easily see a local sheriff having FE: Human because he's spent so much time interacting with them, knowing when someone is hiding something, and just how to hit a crook to take them down quicker.
Hatred of a favored enemy is a stereotype that needs to be broken.
But hatred of a favored enemy is so much fun :)
<-smashed unconcious kobold's face in with a shovel last game.
So is the 'Thog SMASH' barbarian. :) Just saying we need to break out of the box a little more.
Agreed. Her hatred of gnolls was as much a part of her character's background as it was based on the favored enemy (and the two were highly correlated, naturally). Still, these weren't the gnolls of her past, and they had treated our party with great respect. What she did was an out and out assassination. She just kept saying "but they're gnolls!"
I have known other rangers who try to justify the "kill all x type mobs" because they were favored enemies. There has to be more of a reason than that, or at least there should.
Their lives were forfiet when they joined a gang of murderous thugs, then initiated combat with the party in question. They got what they deserved and there was no evil in the act.Evil act. Period.
You murdered two noncombatants who were trying to both escape and surrender.
Also extremely uncourageous, and any god of strength and battle worth his salt would sneer and deride such a cowardly act.
Except for the fact that's exactly what didn't happen. They didn't initiate combat, they specifically avoided combat, and they never attacked. Noncombatants not fighting, escaping and attempting to surrender, and doing so as self sacrifice to save another.
Killing people that do that (who are unarmed and again non aggressive) is evil. Also the party didn't actually know anything about the tieflings other than the fact they were in the same location as the bandits.
So murdering a couple of people is perfectly cool as long as they are evil?They're not just any "couple of people". They're evil murderers which the player thought were deserving of death. As a chaotic character, he did not trust the law to properly punish them so he did it himself, and even gave them a chance to fight back. When they tried to surrender, he probably saw that as an act of cowardice, being a cleric of a god of war and all, and killed them.
To me, the player acted perfectly in character.
1. The players didn't know that they were evil murderers... they do know they were found in the same area as evil murderers. If that's enough to assign guilt you best hope you don't live near a serial killer.
2. You thing on the "act of cowardice" is a bunch of drivel as already stated it's explicted in the religion of the war god involved that you do NOT kill in these specific circumstances.
3. In character =/= good. In character =/= neutral. In character == In character -- being in character has nothing to do with the question of morality in the act. Beyond that even if he was "in character" he still screwed up by his god (see earlier points on religion of Gorum) -- it's not a choice, it's a cardinal sin in his own religion.
Just because it could be something that someone would do in character doesn't make it a non-evil act -- even if his god espoused such ideas that still wouldn't make it a non-evil act -- simply one his god approved of.
What was a cleric of war to do in his situation? He wanted to kill them and offered them a chance to pick up their weapons and have a fair fight. They refused.
What would you have done in his shoes that you think matches his alignment and the 'teachings of Gorum'?
I don't know maybe exactly what the teachings of Gorum states and not the exact opposite? Tie them up take them prisoner, and laugh at their pathetic cowardly natures... however you don't murder them.
Only one more question. If they had handed them over to the authorities, what would have happened? They would have been hung. Would that have been an evil act? Instead, he cut out the middleman and did it himself.
I'll admit I'm not up to snuff with the gods of Golarion and their policies, so I was probably wrong about the policies of Gorum. I still think offering them a chance of a fair fight was the right thing to do as a follower of a god of war, but whatever.
What would have happened if they were turned over doesn't change what was done. See my earlier post about responsibility for action...
Offering them a chance to fight was fair and good according to Gorum -- however when they refused to fight and instead surrendered the teachings of Gorum state that you can't simply just kill them.