Everybody took their turns in stride. The wizard cast flaming sphere and roasted one mite. The cavalier charged in and lopped the head off another. The oracle healed the wizard who took a few darts to the chest.
My neutral archer range hurled a dagger across the room and into the kobold's skull to put the poor bastard out of his misery before he could be further tortured (the mites sure didn't stop on our account).
Suddenly, I'm the bad guy! The other players went in to a fit saying things like "what did you do that for!?"
The GM warned me (after the fact) that, that was a mark against my alignment and that I should be more careful in the future.
To which I responded "You're punishing me for an act of mercy? I think it was perfectly within my alignment!"
Obviously, everyone else (NG and LG characters all) disagreed. he oracle in particular asked me why I didn't give her the chance to heal the poor creature. To be honest, that hadn't occurred to me at the time of the mercy killing, but I nevertheless argued that she could heal the body, but not the mind, which is what prolonged torture (the GM said the kobold was being stabbed over and over again) will eventually destroy.
Several of the other players asked me things like "Would your character kill an old man in town because he was suffering from cancer?"
I told them that my character absolutely would, without hesitation, if asked to do so by the old man.
They then went on a tirade about how the kobold didn't exactly ask.
And so on and so on.
In the end, the argument lasted only about 5 minutes or so and we got back to the game and had a great time. I made it known that I disagreed with (but abided by) the GM's decision to make it hit against my alignment. It also didn't help matters that the GM made it clear that we had missed out on a side quest because of my character's actions ("Great! You cost us XP too!")--which I don't think should have any bearing on things anyways as that is a purely metagame construct that my character could have known nothing about (much less been able to act--or not act--upon it).
So I ask you, was this a mark of evil? Or a benevolent mark of mercy? Which do you believe and why?
***
In a previous session, a lot of flack came down on me because I had...
...killed some baby boars we came across. It was my intention that our characters were going to eat well that night.
Some time later, the party was attacked by a monstrous mother boar that nearly killed the entire party (tearing apart the wizard and dropping many others, including myself, before it was finally vanquished).
Again, everyone blamed me for something my character could not have possibly have known would happen. He searched for the mother board before slaying the piglets and figured they were abandoned or otherwise lost.
I'm a ranger. I hunt and kill and eat. I don't feel I should be verbally chastised for roleplaying my character appropriately.
But I want some perspective: If you were running the wizard who was killed, would you blame it on me too? Why or why not?
|
No, I wouldn't blame a hunter for hunting. That is stupid.
As for the kobold, you butchered a tortured prisoner with a thrown dagger rather than slaying his attackers to save him 12-18 seconds of torture? Interesting. And you can of course diagnose that he was insane merely at a glance...
Basically- the kobold thing- that was something I could definitely see other players taking issue with, and as DM i'd likely note that it was a chaotic act, i'm not sure i'd say evil.
On a side-note, why do you continue to play with a group that seems to take issue with everything you do?
On a side-note, why do you continue to play with a group that seems to take issue with everything you do?
They don't take issue with EVERYTHING. Furthermore, some of their issues are legitimate sometimes. I get on them about various things too every once in a while. It sounds harsh when I write about it, but we usually get along just fine.
I'm not using spoilers anymore, there have been ample warnings.
As for the kobold, he was being stabbed repeatedly by 8 people for God knows how long. Is it not safe to say he's done for and that to simply let him lie there is to only prolong his suffering? I don't have to be a healer to understand that a small creature stabbed like 64 times doesn't generally live through it.
Mercy Killings like that are common in times of war, weather or not the government admits to it or not is another matter. That isnt good or evil, and people on both sides of the fence have done such. As for the cancer thing, many good people think that helping someone comit harakiri is honorable. `So as a DM I say you are still Neutral. :)
And People eat baby cows and lambs (baby sheep) today all over the world, esp in the US. And the younger the pig the better the bacon...
Also cattle are eaten as 1-4 year olds as well... usually yearlings...
As for the kobold, he was being stabbed repeatedly by 8 people for God knows how long. Is it not safe to say he's done for and that to simply let him lie there is to only prolong his suffering? I don't have to be a healer to understand that a small creature stabbed like 64 times doesn't generally live through it.
People generally try to examine something and make sure it isn't going to get better before they go to mercy killing. If a horse trips and is having difficulty getting up you don't just assume it's a broken leg and kill it, just as you don't assume that someone with a bad fever and groaning in pain is terminal.
Yes, he had been stabbed a lot and for a long time, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was insane. And unless your character has never heard of magical healing jumping straight to mercy killing isn't exactly logical when dealing with a sentient being. Pain doesn't automatically drive someone insane, and there are ways of stabbing people that aren't life threatening.
Your character should have checked on the actual state of the kobold before making that call. What you did was kind of the equivalent of a cleric being called in to heal you after you dropped to -1hp and him deciding to just coup de grace you without bothering to so much as actually examine your wounds.
|
|
Applying real world logic to fantasy versimilitude is flawed. Any injury can be healed by magic in Golarion unlike here on Earth, provided the subject is alive to receive healing. Even the optional rules for insanity in the GMG include caveats that spells like heal and restoration can cure insanities.
Applying real world logic to fantasy versimilitude is flawed. Any injury can be healed by magic in Golarion unlike here on Earth, provided the subject is alive to receive healing. Even the optional rules for insanity in the GMG include caveats that spells like heal and restoration can cure insanities.
Exactly! And its hard to say that healing was completely out of mind since the Oracle had healed the Wizard moments before.
Being allied with the Kobolds it would seem to make sense to bring their friend back to them and let them decide what to do with him instead of making a snap decision from across the room based on a bunch of assumptions.
"But those eyes! I will never forget those poor, wretched eyes! Filled with such unimaginable pain that he was practically calling out to me, begging me to end his life. He was already lost. I only did what I had to do."
:P
Kobold = Agree with GM, you should take an alignment hit over that.
Boar = Well i would not hold that against you. Although, any time you run across baby animals, you should expect the mother/father to make an appearance latter if you kill there young. (As a GM, I would have you rolled a Survival or Knowledge: nature roll, with bonus to know this as a ranger).
Boar = Well i would not hold that against you. Although, any time you run across baby animals, you should expect the mother/father to make an appearance latter if you kill there young. (As a GM, I would have you rolled a Survival or Knowledge: nature roll, with bonus to know this as a ranger).
Well, I was expecting there to be a mother somewhere. What I wasn't expecting was for her to hunt us down over a day later.
I figured if sh were going to attack, she'd do so as I attacked her young, not long after.
The only reason anyone died was because she caught us off guard later on.
|
|
"But those eyes! I will never forget those poor, wretched eyes! Filled with such unimaginable pain that he was practically calling out to me, begging me to end his life. He was already lost. I only did what I had to do."
:P
"But he could have been saved, his wounds and mind healed... Who are you to dole out judgement and mercy when walking right into a situation? More importantly why weren't you helping us fight the mites? What if Durn had been killed?"
For those that think this is an evil act, what if it were other kobolds torturing one of their own?
What you've got there is an evil creature torturing another evil creature. For those that might argue that *these* kobolds aren't evil, remember that they torture the mites just as much in their little war.
PCs regularly kill scores of intelligent evil critters as a matter of course in almost all campaigns. I couldn't even try to count the number of times that PCs have invaded the homes of koblods and slaughtered them all without so much as even trying to talk to them.
If you want a subjective view of good and evil then every situation can be argued from either side. Otherwise, you have to concede things like "murder is evil" and apply it equally to all subjects. I prefer to take a slightly more medieval view of things in my campaign and the killing of evil creatures is not considered evil.
Now, it may be that you've broken your word to the kobolds you promised to help (depending on exactly what you said) so the act may have been chaotic, but I wouldn't have considered it evil.
|
I personally hate alignment threads, but I hate it when people cry "EVIL ACT!" more.
Killing piglets? Especially if you attempted to find the mother first? Not only is that not a remotely evil act, but if I was playing your character and my party chewed me out for that, they'd be doing their own foraging from now on. A week of vegan meals and they'll come crawling back.
As for the Kobold? The only complaint I'd have is the timing. Kill the hostage-takers first, then decide what to do. As for "putting him out of his misery", well, you're aren't playing a GOOD character, are you? I might have a problem if a good character, especially an LG one, was quite that casual about murdering a helpless sentient creature, but a neutral one? Painlessly putting a, presumably evil, creature out of its misery? Hardly an alignment problem. I mean, if you made a habit out of it, sure, or if you really seemed to enjoy it...
My real problem here is with your DM. Characters can argue about moral relativism until the cows come home (see any Avengers comic, ever), but the DM should only get involved for acts that cannot be considered "good" or "lawful", or a pattern of behavior that isn't "chaotic" or balanced, and if a PC wants to call his philanthropic, orphan-aiding, puppy-loving nun "evil", more power to him (getting to do whatever you want is a perk of being Evil). Forcing an alignment change, or even a "hit", is not only juvenile, it also forces players to play only the most black-and-white stereotypes, without any hint that two well-meaning people can disagree.
Not to mention that these kind of pointless discussions, when carried out-of-game, can ruin gaming groups...
For those that think this is an evil act, what if it were other kobolds torturing one of their own?
What you've got there is an evil creature torturing another evil creature. For those that might argue that *these* kobolds aren't evil, remember that they torture the mites just as much in their little war.
PCs regularly kill scores of intelligent evil critters as a matter of course in almost all campaigns. I couldn't even try to count the number of times that PCs have invaded the homes of koblods and slaughtered them all without so much as even trying to talk to them.
If you want a subjective view of good and evil then every situation can be argued from either side. Otherwise, you have to concede things like "murder is evil" and apply it equally to all subjects. I prefer to take a slightly more medieval view of things in my campaign and the killing of evil creatures is not considered evil.
Now, it may be that you've broken your word to the kobolds you promised to help (depending on exactly what you said) so the act may have been chaotic, but I wouldn't have considered it evil.
Please re-read his original post.... He said his group had allied themselves with the kobolds. So he killed a possible allie. Also, his reasoning, mercy killing, would not hold up due to killing the kobold when they might have had a chance to rescue the kobold.
Please re-read his original post.... He said his group had allied themselves with the kobolds. So he killed a possible allie. Also, his reasoning, mercy killing, would not hold up due to killing the kobold when they might have had a chance to rescue the kobold.
I did read the post and my response reflects that. Killing evil creatures is (in my opinion) not an evil act. Making it an evil act causes all sorts of problems when playing this game.
Killing a possible ally is a chaotic act because you're breaking some sort of oath or promise to work together or for a common goal.
It's perfectly acceptable as a CG act to kill kobolds you've allied with if (in the context of this AP) you believe it's in the best interest of your kingdom and/or citizens.
This is, of course, my own view of the alignment system and I don't claim that everyone should play the same way I do. It just makes things much easier if you start with a list of things which constitute good acts, evil acts, lawful acts and chaotic acts.
For those that think this is an evil act, what if it were other kobolds torturing one of their own?
What you've got there is an evil creature torturing another evil creature. For those that might argue that *these* kobolds aren't evil, remember that they torture the mites just as much in their little war.
PCs regularly kill scores of intelligent evil critters as a matter of course in almost all campaigns. I couldn't even try to count the number of times that PCs have invaded the homes of koblods and slaughtered them all without so much as even trying to talk to them.
If you want a subjective view of good and evil then every situation can be argued from either side. Otherwise, you have to concede things like "murder is evil" and apply it equally to all subjects. I prefer to take a slightly more medieval view of things in my campaign and the killing of evil creatures is not considered evil.
Now, it may be that you've broken your word to the kobolds you promised to help (depending on exactly what you said) so the act may have been chaotic, but I wouldn't have considered it evil.
Please re-read his original post.... He said his group had allied themselves with the kobolds. So he killed a possible allie. Also, his reasoning, mercy killing, would not hold up due to killing the kobold when they might have had a chance to rescue the kobold.
We agreed to help the kobolds with retrieving the idol. My character also personally promised the kobold shaman that he would personally make the mites suffer for their crimes (my ranger was raised/abused by spriggans and knows of/hates mites). All we asked for in return was their promise to agree to a peace treaty with the sword lords, thereby eliminating them as a possible threat to the region.
Additionally, after we returned the idol, we agreed to help the shaman retrieve a material component from some giants in order to further strengthen relations. We have not quite started that particular quest yet, however, as we've been waylayed by some kind of bandit fort in our way. I strongly suspect we are going to attempt to sack it at the start of our next game before proceeding with the giant quest, as our party scout tells us he spotted somebody inside he believes to be the infamous Stag Lord from the wanted posters that we've seen.
Sorry. I began to ramble. What I was trying to say was: killing the kobold being tortured on the table has in no way effected our dealings with the kobolds. None of us have any idea who he was or whether he was important or not. That doesn't matter though. My character would have put a king out of his misery just as readily as a kobold peasant if he thought it to be the most good, merciful act available to him.
...
Also, there is nothing in the rules that says cure spells can cure mental afflictions or illnesses. Such conjecture is just that, conjecture. We are only 4th-level at this point and as such don't have any high level magics that might specifically target mental conditions, such as heal. In fact, I think we have cure light and cure mod and little else.
You realize that crazy people sometimes come back from the dead to seek vengeance and that "mercy killing" might have been the last final cruelty that sent the little kobold over the edge, right? Sitting there, tortured for ages, hoping for a rescue, only to have some grinning adventurer look in his pleading eyes and then throw a dagger between them?
That sounds like a perfectly good justification for a revenant in my book.
Also, there is nothing in the rules that says cure spells can cure mental afflictions or illnesses. Such conjecture is just that, conjecture. We are only 4th-level at this point and as such don't have any high level magics that might specifically target mental conditions, such as heal. In fact, I think we have cure light and cure mod and little else.
There's nothing in the rules that says that getting stabbed a lot causes mental illness or insanity. Using your logic your allies are justified in killing you if you lose 95-99% of your hit points, as you are now clearly insane and should be put out of your misery since nothing is going to be able to save you from the pain or cure the madness.
Except for healing. And the fact that you aren't insane.
Probably just like the kobold you killed rather than kill the creatures that you despised and were also hurting your friends.
"Only by drilling holes in his head can we cure his insanity."
Did the ranger have any experience judging mental problems, torture, etc.? Any skill ranks to represent this expertise? This is the first Kingmaker adventure (which I am also DMing at present) so the character probably doesn't have more than a few months field experience to call upon to make this judgement.
There really aren't skills for that kind of thing to put ranks in. However...
“Oh I just love killin’ bandits!”
Lost in the wild as a child, Foerth was found and raised by fey-creatures known as spriggans. The spriggans, an evil and violent lot, spent many years trying to warp the boy’s mind in an attempt to make him more like them. They only partially succeeded. Though his unusual childhood made him quite crazy, Foerth’s human nature proved to be quite enduring and he never truly fell into the depraved habits and rituals common to the vile spriggans. Due to a never ending series of cruel tricks and minor abuse by his adoptive family, Foerth became incredibly tough and learned much about survival in the wild, though he also became insensate.
One day a large group of bandits found the spriggan tribe and attacked them in hopes of stealing their ill-gotten spoils. The spriggans, being violent cut throats themselves, managed to repel the invaders with their magic and potent martial abilities, but not before the bandits discovered and captured Foerth. The surviving bandits took Foerth to Issia in Northern Brevoy, where he was forced to spend a number of years in academies and institutions that attempted to reform him. They only partially succeeded. Foerth learned to read and write in the common language, and he gained much needed experience in the ways of the civilized world, but his disquieting personality remained almost completely unchanged.
Eventually, Foerth escaped from the institutions and returned to the wild in hopes of finding his way back to his “family.” The once small world, however, proved to have grown much too large for him and he had no idea where his former home now lay. After going through a terrible and uncharacteristic bout of depression, Foerth’s new maelstrom of emotion turned to one of anger and rage. He turned it against those who had ruined his life: the bandits and highwaymen of the River Kingdoms.
Foerth became a bounty hunter who specialized in finding and destroying criminals who would hide in the wild. His talents as an effective tracker and manslayer grew in infamy until they nearly rivaled the dark rumors of his strange and unusual past. He was last seen traveling into the Stolen Lands far to the South as part of an expedition to rid the region of criminal activity and reopen long lost trade routes.
...my character does know first hand what torture can do, and the insanity that can stem from it.
I think, in view of your character's specific background, I wouldn't have penalized him for his actions in that case. Yes it is possible that the better solution would have been to kill the mites as fast as possible and then worry about healing the kobold, since healing spells can take care of the physical damage. On the other hand, your character could have easily put himself in the kobold's situation, imagining his own upbringing with the spriggans and how he had spent his childhood wishing for any release from the torture, even death. Or maybe he recognizes that he is hopelessly flawed and irreparably shaken by his experiences and either consciously or subconsciously wished to spare the kobold the life your character has been forced to live. There are lots of ways you could justify your character's actions with your backstory, so long as you actually felt this is what your character would do and weren't just killing the kobold for a laugh.
As for the boar thing, that's a non issue, or if anything an issue with the DM wanting to punish you for something. Rangers hunt, it's what they do, are you going to be punished for taking a doe or snaring a few rabbits next session? Now if you see a boar and threaten/kill her piglets in front of her that's a different story, but from the situation you presented I don't think the group has any reason to be mad at you.
So basically the character is a twisted sociopath who likes killing.
A tragic backstory doesn't make you not evil. It just makes you a tragic villain.
So basically the character is a twisted sociopath who likes killing.
A tragic backstory doesn't make you not evil. It just makes you a tragic villain.
Sociopath, yes. Cold-blooded killer, no. The only thing he actually takes pleasure in killing is bandits. Everything else is out of necessity or in self-defense (or defense of others).
Also, a character portrait, just for fun.