The other night, we were playing a game of pathfinder. And we defeat a monk/rogue who was helping goblins out in attacks on the city.
Now I'm playing the N druid. and while everyone is all busy with the monks sister who he had kidnapped and planned to sacrifice, I take tie the monk up (He just barely dropped). Now playerwise, I was assuming that he was stabilized and everything, and so I take him upstairs and hang him up on a pipe. (Not like Choke hang, but in a way that shouldn't normally kill him. They jumped to the conclusion that I noosed him, though I made a small sketch on the board in front of me to demonstrate how he was being held up. )
Once the rest of the party figured out I had done something with him, (They all presumed him as dead, and I was the only one who did anything after the DM mentioned a little about him still being alive, just hurt) they start getting upset. Then apparently I'm actually doing an evil deed by tieing him up, and leaving him somewhere without spending time to stabilize him. But leaving him on the floor and still bleeding was perfectly fine.
Now the reason why the party never knew what I was doing was cause they weren't even listening when I announced the things I was doing to make sure we don't suddenly get attacked.
My questions are..
Would tieing him up "batman style" and not stabilizing him really be evil? Especially when the intention is to temporary remove him from our worries?
And was I really in the wrong even if I did end up accidentally causing the NPCs death when the rest of the party didn't even care about him until I got busy preventing him from attacking us from behind?
|
I'd say your biggest mistake was making an assumption about the monk's condition instead of checking on it. If your druid has ranks in the Heal skill it should have been fairly simple to determine the extent of his injuries and stabilize him. That one action would have circumvented all the drama you described. Also, were the other players really so thoroughly focused on dealing with the sister that you couldn't interrupt them long enough to say "hey guys, the monk's still alive--what should I do with him"? A little inter-party communication can go along way toward averting the sort of recriminations you found yourself facing in this instance.
As for the morality of your actions, well, it seems clear you weren't prepared to just coup de grace the guy, so the question becomes "is letting someone die when you could save him at no risk to yourself less evil than slitting his throat?". I suppose honest people could disagree on that, but my answer would be "yes, but only slightly less" (especially when you and your associates are the ones who inflicted the wounds he's dying from). So, I'd say what you did was certainly not good and maybe even borderline evil, but not to such a degree that it would instantly change your alignment to NE. Nonetheless, your party's total indifference to his fate prior to your actions hardly positions them to claim the moral high ground in this instance.
Frankly what I'd be most interested in hearing (since I'm 99% sure I know exactly what AP you're playing)is why nobody in the party wanted to capture and question that particular monk. When my group played through that scene we were really hoping to take him alive so we could find out what was going on, but he managed to get away from us (although we did manage to save his sister, with whom my character has since become romantically involved).
I'd say your biggest mistake was making an assumption about the monk's condition instead of checking on it. If your druid has ranks in the Heal skill it should have been fairly simple to determine the extent of his injuries and stabilize him. That one action would have circumvented all the drama you described. Also, were the other players really so thoroughly focused on dealing with the sister that you couldn't interrupt them long enough to say "hey guys, the monk's still alive--what should I do with him"? A little inter-party communication can go along way toward averting the sort of recriminations you found yourself facing in this instance.
As for the morality of your actions, well, it seems clear you weren't prepared to just coup de grace the guy, so the question becomes "is letting someone die when you could save him at no risk to yourself less evil than slitting his throat?". I suppose honest people could disagree on that, but my answer would be "yes, but only slightly less" (especially when you and your associates are the ones who inflicted the wounds he's dying from). So, I'd say what you did was certainly not good and maybe even borderline evil, but not to such a degree that it would instantly change your alignment to NE. Nonetheless, your party's total indifference to his fate prior to your actions hardly positions them to claim the moral high ground in this instance.
Frankly what I'd be most interested in hearing (since I'm 99% sure I know exactly what AP you're playing)is why nobody in the party wanted to capture and question that particular monk. When my group played through that scene we were really hoping to take him alive so we could find out what was going on, but he managed to get away from us (although we did manage to save his sister, with whom my character has since become romantically involved).
Well, we started that portion off to with a smashing party. Our Half-Orc Shaman (Really a cleric) threw the bard through a window, thinking there was a window right next to the door that would allow the bard to open the door from the other side.
DM wasn't quite discript enough, but made the throw go through, so room full of many goblins suddenly gets a Bard delivered to them through air mail.
We barely manage to save the bard, and defeat the goblins. We go down and find the monk. Battle basically was 1 to 2 melee fighters (Almost all the party is melee, and those who aren't weren't with us or not very damage dealing)
I ran around casting create water on everything during the battle instead of fighting for no reason what so ever. There was some attempt at negotiations until the monk hit the barbarian.
Monsters and monk fall, Fighter immediately loots monk. And everyone became so worried about getting a locked door open. And I sat there at first listening to loot, and not really caring. After all, I've got two improvised weapon feats.. So I'll use whatever, even it if is incorrectly.
It was about this time that the DM tried to remind the table, and I move in to make sure the monk couldn't just pop back up and sneak attack us from behind.
Also at this time, 2 of our characters start trying to get with the sister, the Half-orc and the Bard. Our fighter loudly proclaims what we should do, our wizard kinda sits there and watches, our monk tells the sister that the brother has been killed(though he hasn't) and her father, and our barb doesn't really do anything.
For a bit of note though, My druid is a "Dog Druid" as in he is beholden to dogs. So he hates the enemies of dogs, such as goblins and a man helping goblins is just as bad as a goblin. (I spent the first few sessions constantly burying dead dogs the goblins killed.)
What the rest of the party did has no bearing on whether your actions were moral or not.
If you suspended him without stabilizing him and he then dies, I'd say you killed him through negligence. Considering that he was trying to murder his own sister, that might be acceptable, depending on the campaign you are playing, but I find it hard to see it as a shining example of justice.
None of you treated Tsuto especially kindly, though I'm not sure whether not making sure he lived was an evil deed or just a non-good one. I wouldn't let anyone slip further than neutral for this.
And if you see what he did to his father, and tried to do to Ameiko, you might be able to justify things with being angry (still not a good deed, but less an evil one and more a hot-blooded reaction. Remember that Pathfinder is not Star Wars. Fear and anger aren't automatically the Dark Side here!)
Sissyl is right: What you do is what you do, doesn't matter what others are doing. Jumping off bridges and so on.
I might classify not checking his condition and just assuming he's dead (or stable) less as evil or even non-good, but more of thoughtless.
I suggest that you make sure next time.
If it's an honest player mistake, I'd just say "okay, let's assume you stabilized him, if that's what you meant to do".
What the others did does have something for my actions though, on weather or not they can really ride the moral high ground. Which is basically my problem here. I know I wasn't doing a "good" act, but I don't think I did evil either.
Just because he is dieing doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to save him. And just because he is still alive I don't need to go out of my way to make sure he died either. Which is the first time I've ever had a DM say "Hey, the 'monster' is still alive", then a few minutes later also mention stabilization checks the monster is making. Which is another first for me..
Roleplay wise, my character has the lonewolf feat, increasing his own ability to stabilize. So really my character could easily assume that all people are like him and can be beaten within an inch of their life and then just get back up after a while.
|
What I'm wondering is why you care if it was evil or not? I'm sure you do plenty of things you'd consider good right? But you're N, which means balanced. So if you do something evil (even if not intentional) then what's the big deal?
Who performed the more evil act? The person who might have let someone die because they didn't know better, or the one who dealt the mortal blow to begin with? I mean come on, the whole group just participated in killing a man (for whatever reason) and they have a problem with you tying him up? Sounds like there are several people who need to recheck their own alignments... ;)
Adventuring is funny that way...
I love the title of this thread.
Thanks for the laugh!