Interesting thread. I found myself on the fence about this one... but I think that there is a strong case for LN. It was a pragmatic decision and in 99.9% of scenarios the right one. Medusa's are tricky buggers.. Never can tell when they are lying.
What the creature could do doesn't change what your actions are, or remove your responsibility for them.
The fact that the medusa was tied up, just gave birth, did not participate in the fight, just watched her newborn die (apparently) and has 3rd degree burns herself, and has done nothing but crawl up into a ball crying, and asking for mercy while hiding her face means that beating her to death because the baby didn't know to hide its face (when just born into the world no less) and unfortunately caused the monk to turn to stone doesn't absolve anyone of the evilness of the action.
She was beaten by the monk out of spite for something someone else did to her when she is of no threat, in serious anguish already, and asking for succor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize if I've been overly ragey and insulting.
Gonna try and stay out of the thread. There are just some subjects that set me off, and between this and one of the replies made in mdt's thread(NOT a remark made by mdt himself), it's done nothing but poison my mood the past few days.
Thanks for the clarification. Personally, I think the guy who made that comment needs quite a few sessions in a small room with a psychiatrist... perhaps with some tranqs involved.
Did this act violate either axis of the monks alignment?
The monk is Lawful Neutral.
Is this a "Lawful" violation: Was the medusa in an area where the recognized authority (ie the law) forbids the murder of helpless monstrous humanoids? No, so no violation.
Is this a "Neutral" violation: The medusa is LE by nature so it clearly favors "evil" over all other alignments. If all sentient beings did this it would through off the "neutral" balance the monk believes in (ie he is Neutral). He is within his Neutral rights to restore universal balance by eliminating what he sees as a threat to such balance. NO violation.
The monk has not violated any axis of his alignment.
Then the monk needs to kill the paladin right? To restore balance? Since the paladin is LG, which isn't neutral.
Then the monk needs to kill himself -- since he's LAWFUL neutral instead of just neutral. He's obviously unbalancing things with his lawfulness.
It's the game rules that need the atonement spell. :)
It's the game rules that need the atonement spell. :)Did this act violate either axis of the monks alignment?
The monk is Lawful Neutral.
Is this a "Lawful" violation: Was the medusa in an area where the recognized authority (ie the law) forbids the murder of helpless monstrous humanoids? No, so no violation.
Is this a "Neutral" violation: The medusa is LE by nature so it clearly favors "evil" over all other alignments. If all sentient beings did this it would through off the "neutral" balance the monk believes in (ie he is Neutral). He is within his Neutral rights to restore universal balance by eliminating what he sees as a threat to such balance. NO violation.
The monk has not violated any axis of his alignment.
Then the monk needs to kill the paladin right? To restore balance? Since the paladin is LG, which isn't neutral.
Then the monk needs to kill himself -- since he's LAWFUL neutral instead of just neutral. He's obviously unbalancing things with his lawfulness.
Yeah the whole 'balance' thing is a part of 'true neutral' too -- not lawful neutral.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crikey! This is ridiculous. The Medusa's baseline alignment is lawful evil, but traumatic events like, oh say, getting turned into a slave, then raped by a horrible-looking monster, which gets the Medusa pregnant, might just be what it takes to change her alignment. Especially when a wandering band of idiots show up and kill her captors, potentially rescuing her, though this becomes malarkey when one of the idiots starts pummeling her to death, for the actions of her newborn half-freakish mutant baby, and no one tries to stop the idiot.
Killing the baby is also something likely to get you thrown in jail, it doesn't know what it's doing, unlike say tyrannosaurs who know full well that you are made of meat and go well with barbecue sauce even if they could never put that into words. The baby has a chance of growing up to be a decent individual, even if they are going to horrify the normals they can still be made into a hero if raised properly, unlike the T-Rex, who is going to grow up to eat people.
The monk performed a chaotic and evil act, you don't try to kill people who surrender, you bind them up, drag them along until you get to civilization, and then you throw them in jail. The medusa didn't even surrender, she wasn't even a part of the fight to begin with, she's a victim more than the characters who were turned to stone. Were a paladin in the party he would be obligated to subdue the monk, at least until he calmed down somewhat. Also: what kind of monk acts like that? What is he 12 or something? Lawful implies a degree of discipline, that character is showing none with those actions, and should be sent back to the temple for re-education.
Yeah the whole 'balance' thing is a part of 'true neutral' too -- not lawful neutral.It's the game rules that need the atonement spell. :)Did this act violate either axis of the monks alignment?
The monk is Lawful Neutral.
Is this a "Lawful" violation: Was the medusa in an area where the recognized authority (ie the law) forbids the murder of helpless monstrous humanoids? No, so no violation.
Is this a "Neutral" violation: The medusa is LE by nature so it clearly favors "evil" over all other alignments. If all sentient beings did this it would through off the "neutral" balance the monk believes in (ie he is Neutral). He is within his Neutral rights to restore universal balance by eliminating what he sees as a threat to such balance. NO violation.
The monk has not violated any axis of his alignment.
Then the monk needs to kill the paladin right? To restore balance? Since the paladin is LG, which isn't neutral.
Then the monk needs to kill himself -- since he's LAWFUL neutral instead of just neutral. He's obviously unbalancing things with his lawfulness.
Balance is not restricted to "true neutral" alignment. Any neutral alignment can be concerned with balance. In fact that is why in older versions druids had to have some "neutral" on one of their axis to become druids.
|
Not to mention the monk is neutral.Tough s~@*. He's a neutral monk that did a chaotic evil deed. THat's what the OP was asking about.
The thread has been up and down this already.
You couldn't find a citation from the OP could you.
Fight your strawman to your hearts context, the monk killed grendels mother.
You know, I have to deal with some other people who refuse to read the rest of the thread on the Star Wars: The Old Republic forums.
But at least they have an excuse, because there are 14.000 preceding posts in that particular discussion ( and I am only asking them to look at the first 2.000 of those... kids these days... ).
What is your excuse for not simply clicking on the OP's nametag and looking at this latest posts, where he explains very explicitly what the situation was?
I did.
And I am waiting for a citation of where it was clear the medusa who just spawned a creature that petrified the monk, in a dungeon, wasn't a threat.
The player can't read the DMKs mind. How io a player supposed to know this is a "good" medusa when all descriptions of medusas include ticking people into traps and considering he was just petrified
Some seem to be reading this forgetting the player doesn't have all the background the DM does. The player sees a medusa in a dungeon that just gave birth to an abomination that petrified him
Why would he think she was secretly a good egg?
In all of this, I'm giving way more leeway to the PCs for killing the spawn than attacking the medusa begging for mercy. Weird ritual birth described as "an atrocity" - I can't think of too many ways for that baby to be a good thing and not some kind of wicked demon-spawn destined to cause a lot of mayhem. Not a good act either, but I certainly wouldn't think any less of a good character's morality for killing the unnatural thing... unlike showing the medusa some mercy.
The act matters, but so does the context.
And I am waiting for a citation of where it was clear the medusa who just spawned a creature that petrified the monk, in a dungeon, wasn't a threat.The player can't read the DMKs mind. How io a player supposed to know this is a "good" medusa when all descriptions of medusas include ticking people into traps and considering he was just petrified
Some seem to be reading this forgetting the player doesn't have all the background the DM does. The player sees a medusa in a dungeon that just gave birth to an abomination that petrified him
Why would he think she was secretly a good egg?
Why would he think she was secretly a good egg or that such would be necessary for showing mercy?
A medusa, cowering on the floor, covering her face, already clearly injured and in terrible shape, and begging for mercy - I think I'm going to consider her not particularly a threat at the moment. And if in doubt, I'd make a sense motive check to see if I thought she was being sincere.
|
|
Alignment gives you a slightly less terminal looking stick to whack players who are only slightly disruptive. :pI find the statement 'there is no justification and continuing to try will get you kicked out' to be very easy. :P
It makes it easier for player to justify letting out the inner wanker without alignment restrictions. And easier for me as GM to remind them of what their character is supposed to behave like. At least that is how it works best for me. ^^
If they're only slightly disruptive, a simple request to stop should be enough. ;)
|
|
And I am waiting for a citation of where it was clear the medusa who just spawned a creature that petrified the monk, in a dungeon, wasn't a threat.The player can't read the DMKs mind. How io a player supposed to know this is a "good" medusa when all descriptions of medusas include ticking people into traps and considering he was just petrified
Some seem to be reading this forgetting the player doesn't have all the background the DM does. The player sees a medusa in a dungeon that just gave birth to an abomination that petrified him
Why would he think she was secretly a good egg?
Why would he think she was secretly a good egg or that such would be necessary for showing mercy?
A medusa, cowering on the floor, covering her face, already clearly injured and in terrible shape, and begging for mercy - I think I'm going to consider her not particularly a threat at the moment. And if in doubt, I'd make a sense motive check to see if I thought she was being sincere.
It is a judgement call.
I am not saying he was right, am saying it wasn't an evil act. He didn't know she was good, he didn't know she wasn't going to petrify him. He saw what you described and acted in a way that isn't unreasonable given context and not at all out of his alignment given context.
It is easy to second guess when you have information the monk was not privy to.
Indeed. And in this case, she did not willingly imbibe the drugs, which is a huge factor in my opinion. If you get drunk or high on your own accord, you are responsible for the fallout.
She was willing to 100%. It was voluntary, not forced medication.
Anyway, my main point was that even though drugs don't change what you WANT, they can change your perception of reality AND how you react to said perception.
I could see someone getting of a murder charge due to having taken hallucinogenics, even unprescribed ones, in my country (Sweden). If someone was in a drug-induced psychosis or the like and killed someone, I think the charge might change from murder to "causing of persons death" (don't know if a law like that exists in the US, but basically it's lighter than manslaughter and is used when you by neglect or the like cause someone to die, rather than intend for them to).
Indeed. And in this case, she did not willingly imbibe the drugs, which is a huge factor in my opinion. If you get drunk or high on your own accord, you are responsible for the fallout.She was willing to 100%. It was voluntary, not forced medication.
Anyway, my main point was that even though drugs don't change what you WANT, they can change your perception of reality AND how you react to said perception.
I could see someone getting of a murder charge due to having taken hallucinogenics, even unprescribed ones, in my country (Sweden). If someone was in a drug-induced psychosis or the like and killed someone, I think the charge might change from murder to "causing of persons death" (don't know if a law like that exists in the US, but basically it's lighter than manslaughter and is used when you by neglect or the like cause someone to die, rather than intend for them to).
Negligent Homicide. Basically, you caused someone elses death through your own stupidity.
There's a similar one called Depraved Indiference that's slightly different, in that case you had every reason in the world to know something you did would allow a death but didn't do anything to stop it. For example, someone is sitting in a room watching a toddler play with a pistol and doesn't take it away before the toddler shoots himself. The person didn't give the baby the gun, she just sat there and watched the toddler play with it and get killed without lifting a finger to stop it.
Balance is not restricted to "true neutral" alignment. Any neutral alignment can be concerned with balance. In fact that is why in older versions druids had to have some "neutral" on one of their axis to become druids.
Balance is also not inherently mentioned in the lawful neutral part, as such it is not the assumption with the alignment, but a possible outlier.
To assign the outlier primary status for the alignment is flawed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other means they are there, population stats do not say if they are living in the sewers or undercover. How many explicitly say that all monster are welcome?Lawful Neutral Molthrune for starters.
Kaer Maga welcomes everyone.
Any city with a population percentage set to "Other" is open to it.
Katapesh, with Sarenrae worshippers aplenty, is noted as being a place where outcast monstrous races can fit in.
Shall I go on?
There you go with that selective reading again.
Look up.
READ THE G@&@+@N POST.
Will welcome a medusa? Really?
Do you own the beastiary? It says in the description they use lies and disguise to set traps.
This is a world with monsters who are evil. Medusa are lawful evil monstrous humonoids.
We aren't talking about a creature that has an ambigious baseline for good or evil.
Kaer Maga.
City alignment: CNPopulation 8000 (5.500 humans, 500 halflings, 400 dwarves, 400 half-elves, 200 gnomes, 100 elves, 100 orcs, 75 trolls. 50 centaurs, 50 goblins, 50 nagas, 175 others.
Others: include Gargoyles, lycanthropes of several varieties, brutish ogre kin and so on.
"In Kaer Maga, the line between citizen and monster tends to be drawn based on action rather than heritage,"
Source: City of Stangers, official Paizo product.
Shocking, right?
Kaer Maga.
City alignment: CN
Population 8000 (5.500 humans, 500 halflings, 400 dwarves, 400 half-elves, 200 gnomes, 100 elves, 100 orcs, 75 trolls. 50 centaurs, 50 goblins, 50 nagas, 175 others.Others: include Gargoyles, lycanthropes of several varieties, brutish ogre kin and so on.
"In Kaer Maga, the line between citizen and monster tends to be drawn based on action rather than heritage,"
Source: City of Stangers, official Paizo product.
Shocking, right?
Seems like a pretty good place to find a Medusa.
It attacked the monk.
If you take the moral ignorance route, are they vegan adveturers as well?
"The thing sputters and wails, and, desperate to consumate the maternal bond, mistakingly fixes its lurid gaze upon you.
Fortitude check"
That was the original description, right? It implies no hostility, or even realization of its action. The creature had an always-on supernatural ability, which it had neither awareness of or the training to not use. It was, atm, at animal intelligence, and no more evil than a hungry bear. Perhaps they had to kill it in self-defense, sure - but that doesn't make it evil.
And once again, this has absolutely no bearing on the medusa's alignment, as she had practically zero control over the situation or her spawn's actions. As I see it, the monk was angry and wanted to take it out on someone, beating up that someone who was already hurt, pleading for mercy and not showing any indication of hostility.
Sure, he didn't commit genocide or something, but from what I know it strikes me as an evil and somewhat chaotic (he was ruled by his emotions) act.
|
|
"In Kaer Maga, the line between citizen and monster tends to be drawn based on action rather than heritage,"
Source: City of Stangers, official Paizo product.
Shocking, right?
No, not to me anyway. Pathfinder seems to share my thoughts on monsters, in that anyone of any race can be a monster, it just depends on how they behave. Heroes are likewise. It's those filthy fence-sitters that unnerve me, you never know what they are going to do next.
Balance is not restricted to "true neutral" alignment. Any neutral alignment can be concerned with balance. In fact that is why in older versions druids had to have some "neutral" on one of their axis to become druids.
That is incorrect. It was not till 3rd edition that they move away from the druid have to being TN and opened it up a little. They also changed the focus of druids from preserving some strange idea of 'balance' to just more nature oriented.
The only alignment that is at all concerned with the 'balance' is TN...and that is just one way to play the alignment.
Now maybe I am just old but I don't consider 3rd ed(which is pretty much copy and paste from 3.5 to Pathfinder) a older version.
And how is the balance served by the monks action anyway? a redeemed medusa would probably go a long way towards balancing the whole evil race? Would not bringing balance to race that only alledgly offers evil byt redeeming some that race to be a force of good? Or heck just even neutrality?
Indeed. And in this case, she did not willingly imbibe the drugs, which is a huge factor in my opinion. If you get drunk or high on your own accord, you are responsible for the fallout.She was willing to 100%. It was voluntary, not forced medication.
Anyway, my main point was that even though drugs don't change what you WANT, they can change your perception of reality AND how you react to said perception.
I could see someone getting of a murder charge due to having taken hallucinogenics, even unprescribed ones, in my country (Sweden). If someone was in a drug-induced psychosis or the like and killed someone, I think the charge might change from murder to "causing of persons death" (don't know if a law like that exists in the US, but basically it's lighter than manslaughter and is used when you by neglect or the like cause someone to die, rather than intend for them to).
I think that is called involuntary manslaughter. We have the "lol, I messed up, but it is not my fault because I did something dumb that made me unaccountable" thing in Norway too. We usually call it "b++~#$$@". We are also up there with the protection of criminals to the point where the public is completely unable to take preventive measures, or help the police with information. Probably because if the filter got taken down and news came out that 70-80% of all the violent crime in Scandinavia is done by immigrants, people would start "voting wrong" and the sitting parties that created these laws and counts on the immigrant votes would be replaced.
I know I am not being politically correct, but most anyone living in Scandinavia will agree that the criminal protection crap has gotten way out of hand. There is basically no consequence of being a criminal monster here compared to anywhere else in the world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a judgement call.
I am not saying he was right, am saying it wasn't an evil act. He didn't know she was good, he didn't know she wasn't going to petrify him. He saw what you described and acted in a way that isn't unreasonable given context and not at all out of his alignment given context.
It is easy to second guess when you have information the monk was not privy to.
Her alignment doesn't have any impact on it one way or another. The monk's alignment doesn't actually matter either -- all that matters is the actions taken in the situation.
Replace the word medusa with elf and it's still evil. Replace the monk with "demon" and it is still evil. Replace the dungeon with city and it is no less evil. Do all three and it is still evil, do none of the above and it remains evil.
The medusa's alignment was an unknown (and could still be unknowable) factor that has no bearing on how the situation should be responded to by a good person, or how it can be responded to by an evil character.
Walking away would have been neutral. Helping would have been good.
His actions to a woman begging for her life after childbirth while covered in third degree burns and cowering (hiding her face) after not doing anything to help her apparent slavers is what does matter.
His actions were to beat the woman. His reasons were frustration at what a baby did on accident. This is not a good action. It is not a neutral action.
This is a malice action taken in rage against a person that did not cause the rage and offered no injury, insult, or justification for the attack other than being alive and in the way.
That is a hallmark evil action.
|
|
Her alignment doesn't have any impact on it one way or another. The monk's alignment doesn't actually matter either -- all that matters is the actions taken in the situation.
Replace the word medusa with elf and it's still evil. Replace the monk with "demon" and it is still evil. Replace the dungeon with city and it is no less evil. Do all three and it is still evil, do none of the above and it remains evil.
The medusa's alignment was an unknown (and could still be unknowable) factor that has no bearing on how the situation should be responded to by a good person, or how it can be responded to by an evil character.
Walking away would have been neutral. Helping would have been good.
His actions to a woman begging for her life after childbirth while covered in third degree burns and cowering (hiding her face) after not doing anything to help her apparent slavers is what does matter.
His actions were to beat the woman. His reasons were frustration at what a baby did on accident. This is not a good action. It is not a neutral action.
This is a malice action taken in rage against a person that did not cause the rage and offered no injury, insult, or justification for the attack other than being alive and in the way.
That is a hallmark evil action.
+1
What every party needs is a paladin or an ample supply of "Detect Evil".
That way behavior does not enter into it. The Medusa would have been hacked up with no alignment issues.
You just use the old paladin adage:Detect Evil
Smite Evil
Rinse & Repeat:)
Except then you'd have to auto-kill a lot of people, including NPC's that are important to the well-being of others. For example, in one of my current campaigns, the very king of a lawful neutral city-state is himself lawful evil. He only really cares about the order of his city, and has no qualms killing of people to the left and right if they threaten the hierarchies. Still, he's vital to keep the city going and should he die, chaos would erupt as a lot of nobles and other notable figures would try to take the crown. Does he deserve to be smitten? Not yet, though I could see him doing stuff that puts him into that group. Still, smiting him would be far more evil if you know the consequences.
Also, the local blacksmith is an evil, racist SoB. He has a strong hate for any orc-kin since his family was slain by orcs, and so he sells fixed weapons and armor to any orc and half-orc buyers that has a large chance of breaking in combat, secretly hoping they "get what they deserve". Does he deserve to be smitten? I don't think so. He deserves a slap in the head and his business taken from him, but he can keep his head.
Still, both are evil. Now, only the king would detect as evil, but still.
Also, detect evil would register a neutral creature that has had a Contagion spell cast on it if the caster level is 6+, with the same strength as an evil medusa or the above mentioned king would be detected.
So yeah, detect-smite would lead you into newcharacterland quite fast in my games. Or at least fallen paladin-land. A paladin not only has to be good, he's got to be lawful too. In many places, manslaughter and murder is illegal. And in the above-mentioned city-state with the evil king, murder is defined as "the killing of intelligent beings without legal support" (the exceptions being mostly the being having been outlawed individually, or having a warrant and trying to escape, or self-defense).
EDIT: And on the topic event, I agree with Spalding to a hundred percent. It wouldn't be an alignment drop for the monk, but I'd give him a strike for it, two if he didn't repent or, well, care afterwards. I'd give him a strike for even trying, though he failed. I'd give the fighter who slew the medusa a strike too, if he'd heard her begging.
This isn't just evil territory or some shade of dark gray. This is the BBEG EVIL area.
It is a judgement call.I am not saying he was right, am saying it wasn't an evil act. He didn't know she was good, he didn't know she wasn't going to petrify him. He saw what you described and acted in a way that isn't unreasonable given context and not at all out of his alignment given context.
It is easy to second guess when you have information the monk was not privy to.
"It is a judgment call?" Why? Because the PC/player exercised his judgment rather than followed a specific rule? Isn't that just about the case whenever a PC/player chooses to do something when they have the freedom pick between one action and another? And don't we evaluate their decisions? Is it not a DM's job to do so within the bounds of the game's rules?
I'd submit that it is a DM's job to do so when alignment issues become important (the forbiddance area) and, if the monk player thought that attacking the medusa wasn't an evil thing to do, he misjudged. But like I've said before, for the monk the consequences of committing a single evil act are negligible at best. He had just better not make a habit of it.
And I am waiting for a citation of where it was clear the medusa who just spawned a creature that petrified the monk, in a dungeon, wasn't a threat.
A medusa hits the ground, rolls up in a ball, covers her eyes, and begs for mercy. In her defense, she's having a very bad day: she has just given birth to the abominable offspring of her mutant beast enslaver. She's naked and exhausted. She is suffering third degree burns from a fireball. She hasn't harmed anyone.
Citation provided.
A naked woman squats over a table, exposing her hugely distended belly as she moans in the agony of her labor. A black leather mask covers only her eyes and permits a shock of writhing serpents masquerading as her hair to roil over the top. Her mask is bound in the back to a thick, iron chain leash, about six feet long. The chain’s other end is clenched in the hateful fist of an abomination.Standing at least ten feet high, the monster boasts features both humanoid and equine. Four sinewy arms spring forth from his barrel-like torso, and he sports three blood red eyes, equally spaced around his misshapen head . His legs are like a powerful steed’s, bent backwards and ending in gigantic hooves. He is mostly hairless and stark white in hue. A magnificent spiral horn extends two feet straight up from the top of his cranium, and is caked in the dried blood of countless victims. He fixes you with a lunatic’s glare, and his mouth foams in rabid fury at your outrageous intrusion.
Throughout the chamber, his many malformed morlock slaves are chanting feverishly: “Orox! Orox! Orox!”
Just then, you witness an atrocity. Amid harrowing screams from the abomination’s pet, a slippery tangle of hairless flesh spills wetly from her gaping womb and tumbles to the floor. The thing sputters and wails, and, desperate to consumate the maternal bond, fixes its lurid gaze upon you.
Fortitude check.
Extra citation.
|
|
+1Her alignment doesn't have any impact on it one way or another. The monk's alignment doesn't actually matter either -- all that matters is the actions taken in the situation.
Replace the word medusa with elf and it's still evil. Replace the monk with "demon" and it is still evil. Replace the dungeon with city and it is no less evil. Do all three and it is still evil, do none of the above and it remains evil.
The medusa's alignment was an unknown (and could still be unknowable) factor that has no bearing on how the situation should be responded to by a good person, or how it can be responded to by an evil character.
Walking away would have been neutral. Helping would have been good.
His actions to a woman begging for her life after childbirth while covered in third degree burns and cowering (hiding her face) after not doing anything to help her apparent slavers is what does matter.
His actions were to beat the woman. His reasons were frustration at what a baby did on accident. This is not a good action. It is not a neutral action.
This is a malice action taken in rage against a person that did not cause the rage and offered no injury, insult, or justification for the attack other than being alive and in the way.
That is a hallmark evil action.
Now change Medusa to demon.
Fair if you are able to change it to elf. What it is matters. Were it a demon it would be a good act. Were it a human, it would be evil unless there were reason to think she was a threat (hag in disguise for example)
We only know what the dm percieved the monks intent was.the fact he didn't have an answer for why makes sense to me.
He killed the monster that birthed the moster that petrified him.
Perfectly reasonable given the contexdt.
|
|
Not to mention the monk is neutral.Tough s%~@. He's a neutral monk that did a chaotic evil deed. THat's what the OP was asking about.
The thread has been up and down this already.
So hypothetical,lets say the Medusa actually was evil and just begging for mercy and fully intended to go back to its lair and lure people to it and use them as statues once the pathetic gullible party let it go. Would the Monks actions still be Chaotic Evil in your book? Is it the results that determine the goodness/evilness of the deed, or the intent?
I am asking because I am not honestly sure how I would answer this question.
His actions where decidedly chaotic, not much evil for a neutral character.
He didn't spend a second examining the situation while he had the possibility to do it (the combat has ended AFAIK and one of his companion had the time to break the petrification). He mostly wanted to relieve his frustration at being turned to stone.
He attacked a creature that was begging for mercy and doing her best to not use her power.
After that he decided on a whim to stop (the GM asked the player if he was sure of what he was doing and he rolled a dice to decide his next action, read from the character point of view he had some doubt and decided he has relieved enough frustration hitting the medusa and he had no need to kill her, way to go for a LN monk, master of self-discipline).
He had the possibility to blindfold her and then interrogate her with relatively little risk and take a rational decision,instead he has chosen to act on his whims/frustrations.
Decidedly chaotic.
|
|
And I am waiting for a citation of where it was clear the medusa who just spawned a creature that petrified the monk, in a dungeon, wasn't a threat.
A medusa hits the ground, rolls up in a ball, covers her eyes, and begs for mercy. In her defense, she's having a very bad day: she has just given birth to the abominable offspring of her mutant beast enslaver. She's naked and exhausted. She is suffering third degree burns from a fireball. She hasn't harmed anyone.Citation provided.
...
A naked woman squats over a table, exposing her hugely distended belly as she moans in the agony of her labor. A black leather mask covers only her eyes and permits a shock of writhing serpents masquerading as her hair to roil over the top. Her mask is bound in the back to a thick, iron chain leash, about six feet long. The chain’s other end is clenched in the hateful fist of an abomination.Standing at least ten feet high, the monster boasts features both humanoid and equine. Four sinewy arms spring forth from his barrel-like torso, and he sports three blood red eyes, equally spaced around his misshapen head . His legs are like a powerful steed’s, bent backwards and ending in gigantic hooves. He is mostly hairless and stark white in hue. A magnificent spiral horn extends two feet straight up from the top of his cranium, and is caked in the dried blood of countless victims. He fixes you with a lunatic’s glare, and his mouth foams in rabid fury at your outrageous intrusion.
Throughout the chamber, his many malformed morlock slaves are chanting feverishly: “Orox! Orox! Orox!”
Just then, you witness an atrocity. Amid harrowing screams from the abomination’s pet, a slippery tangle of hairless flesh spills wetly from her gaping womb and tumbles to the floor. The thing sputters and wails, and, desperate to consumate the maternal bond, fixes its lurid gaze
First citation wasn't what was described to the players. The second one proves my point. You just choose to overlook the "atrocity" sections because they don't fit you narrative.
It isn't what the DM knows, it is what the player know.
Perfectly reasonable given the contexdt.
Reasonable given the context isn't necessarily not evil. Reasonable means that you can understand the rationale behind it - and plenty of people do pretty nasty thing in the heat of battle and when they're not really thinking through the full implications of what they're doing. Just because you can see the pros and cons of attacking the surrendering, injured medusa compared to showing her mercy doesn't render the act itself neutral with respect to good and evil. Evil behavior can certainly be reasonable itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now change Medusa to demon.
Fair if you are able to change it to elf. What it is matters. Were it a demon it would be a good act. Were it a human, it would be evil unless there were reason to think she was a threat (hag in disguise for example)
We only know what the dm percieved the monks intent was.the fact he didn't have an answer for why makes sense to me.
He killed the monster that birthed the moster that petrified him.
Perfectly reasonable given the contexdt.
Good you are starting to figure it out.
Funny thing -- Change Medusa to demon -- still an evil action.
To date the medusa's actions haven't changed.
As provided by my citation above these actions have consisted of:
1. Giving birth.
2. Getting burned.
3. Cowering hiding/'sheathing' potentially harmful abilities.
4. Begging for mercy.
what creature performs these actions doesn't matter -- just the actions themselves.
The monk's response was still evil -- chaotic, and not neutral.
Now there is a slight problem with your change -- I went from mortal humanoid to mortal humanoid -- you went from mortal humanoid to outsider, which has a lot of different baggage.
However that still doesn't change the base premise that it is action that are being judged, and the actions taken do not warrant the action received.
First citation wasn't what was described to the players. The second one proves my point. You just choose to overlook the "atrocity" sections because they don't fit you narrative.
Incorrect -- just because you are an 'atrocity' or an 'atrocity' happens to you doesn't condemn you for the atrocity happening or make you the atrocity itself.
By your reasoning the man that lived through both atomic bombs being dropped on Japan is an atrocity and needs to be killed.
Do not mistake happenings with actions.
|
|
Which goes back to this point:PS: I will also add that if a GM wants his sentient monsters to be treated humanely he should portray them as such from time to time. If he always has them act like monsters with no regard for life that is how they will be treated. I am making my arguments based on a world where monsters are not just "monsters".We do not know if the GM/OP does this or not
The OP said that he manage "monsters" that way.
So, at least form the GM point of view, we know that in his game world monsters are not just "monsters".As we have only what the GM is giving us we have to accept his word on the player knowing that.
Now change Medusa to demon.
Fair if you are able to change it to elf. What it is matters. Were it a demon it would be a good act. Were it a human, it would be evil unless there were reason to think she was a threat (hag in disguise for example)
We only know what the dm percieved the monks intent was.the fact he didn't have an answer for why makes sense to me.
He killed the monster that birthed the moster that petrified him.
Perfectly reasonable given the contexdt.
Good you are starting to figure it out.
Funny thing -- Change Medusa to demon -- still an evil action.
To date the medusa's actions haven't changed.
As provided by my citation above these actions have consisted of:
1. Giving birth.
2. Getting burned.
3. Cowering hiding/'sheathing' potentially harmful abilities.
4. Begging for mercy.what creature performs these actions doesn't matter -- just the actions themselves.
The monk's response was still evil -- chaotic, and not neutral.
Now there is a slight problem with your change -- I went from mortal humanoid to mortal humanoid -- you went from mortal humanoid to outsider, which has a lot of different baggage.
However that still doesn't change the base premise that it is action that are being judged, and the actions taken do not warrant the action received.
Funny how people are pointing out concepts that a human can be a hag in disguise. While none so far have even entertained the thought of the medusa being a goodly creature trapped in a different form. After all, she avoided doing evil things like her life depended on it. Should this not make someone question the whole scenario?
When a monster acts "out of character", any goodly character I play will immediately stop and go "Wait a minute, this seems off."
Indeed. And in this case, she did not willingly imbibe the drugs, which is a huge factor in my opinion. If you get drunk or high on your own accord, you are responsible for the fallout.She was willing to 100%. It was voluntary, not forced medication.
Anyway, my main point was that even though drugs don't change what you WANT, they can change your perception of reality AND how you react to said perception.
I could see someone getting of a murder charge due to having taken hallucinogenics, even unprescribed ones, in my country (Sweden). If someone was in a drug-induced psychosis or the like and killed someone, I think the charge might change from murder to "causing of persons death" (don't know if a law like that exists in the US, but basically it's lighter than manslaughter and is used when you by neglect or the like cause someone to die, rather than intend for them to).
I think that is called involuntary manslaughter. We have the "lol, I messed up, but it is not my fault because I did something dumb that made me unaccountable" thing in Norway too. We usually call it "b#!~!+~!". We are also up there with the protection of criminals to the point where the public is completely unable to take preventive measures, or help the police with information. Probably because if the filter got taken down and news came out that 70-80% of all the violent crime in Scandinavia is done by immigrants, people would start "voting wrong" and the sitting parties that created these laws and counts on the immigrant votes would be replaced.
I know I am not being politically correct, but most anyone living in Scandinavia will agree that the criminal protection crap has gotten way out of hand. There is basically no consequence of being a criminal monster here compared to anywhere else in the world.
And 70-80% of all crimes? Source, please. That sounds like the retarded propaganda by varying semi-fascistic, semi-rasistic right-wing populists in Sweden. I know in Sweden, the overrepresentation for imimgrants and their children is about 2.5, and 1.9 or 1.6 or something when standardized for socioeconomic situation and gender (IIRC, don't have the sources here). That means about 25% of all violent crimes are by immigrants and their children.
And really, most of the people I've seen seriously discussing criminal protection, crime politics and the like on Swedish forums seem to be in favor of good treatment of prisoners and rehabilitation rather than punishment. There's a few people advocating harsher punishments, but most of them seem to be either dumb (as in, can't type properly, can't understand what you're saying, don't understand the words you're using), rich brats that don't know f~*& about the real world, or actual racists (not just in the loose sense but literally).
On the other hand, most of the people that are educated in the matter seem to be against harsher punishments, as are alot of the people active in non-party groups where such matters are discussed (human rights groups and the like). Actually, a lot of them (including me, though I've not had a formal education I've been reading a LOT of work on the subject as it's one of my main interests, seeing as how crime politics plays a large part in the distribution of power within a society) are against the very notion of punishment as a sort of moral revenge. Of course actions should be taken against murderers and rapists, but the goal should be to protect the public (and possibly rehabilitate the person), not to enact some kind of revenge.
Learn to read.She didn't attack the monk.
The child did.
The monk took it out on the medusa.
You have consistently misrepresented the situation in this thread.
Stop doing that.
Parents are responsible for their kids actions while the kids are young. If you baby sets the neighbors house on fire, the mom/dad are at fault.
|
|
I did.And I am waiting for a citation of where it was clear the medusa who just spawned a creature that petrified the monk, in a dungeon, wasn't a threat.
The player can't read the DMKs mind. How io a player supposed to know this is a "good" medusa when all descriptions of medusas include ticking people into traps and considering he was just petrified
Some seem to be reading this forgetting the player doesn't have all the background the DM does. The player sees a medusa in a dungeon that just gave birth to an abomination that petrified him
Why would he think she was secretly a good egg?
To repeat it again, as you seem incapable to getting it, is that the medusa was currently harmless and the PC had the time to check her instead of acting as a CE and wenting his frustration for being petrified on her.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What guarantee was available to Monk, that during her next action Medusa was not going to attack? After all, she had seen offspring killed a moment before.
Curling up into a ball, begging for mercy is likely at least a standard action. She could have used her gaze attack then. Why wait a round if she was going to use it?
And still, he could have just punched her into unconsciousness, or used a dirty trick to blind her (I assume blind medusas can't use the gaze attack), or whatever.
EDIT: To ciretose and others asking for evidence that she wasn't a threat or that she wasn't evil, that's the wrong burden of proof, IMO. A person shouldn't have to prove that it isn't evil or isn't a threat unless it has earlier proven that it is.
ANYONE can be a threat. You can't go around killing just anyone because they can be a threat or can be evil. The local innkeeper is too low-level to detect evil on, and he could coup-de-grace you in your sleep. Does he have to prove that he isn't a threat before you chop his head of? No?
Parents are responsible for their kids actions while the kids are young. If you baby sets the neighbors house on fire, the mom/dad are at fault.
Incorrect -- it is the parent's responsibility -- and only barely dependent entirely upon culture.
This is also a case of "accident" as well -- the baby did nothing to the monk on purpose -- indeed it was just born, it couldn't if it wanted to. The medusa was likewise at least partially incapacitated from having just given birth.
As such to affix blame and 'wrong doing' to either of them in this case is incorrect.
The medusa could be responsible for fixing what the child has done, but even then it isn't something that immediate action could have fixed, and we won't know what intention she would have had in the case since the monk had already been 'fixed'.
|
|
FWIW, if I were in a firefight over here, and a man with the insurgents I was engaged with fell down covering his head screaming, I would be tried for murder if I shot him dead. Yes, he COULD have been trying to fool me in order to activate his suicide vest when I let my guard down, but if investigation proves that I shot an unarmed man, I'd be going to prison.
FWIW, if I were in a firefight over here, and a man with the insurgents I was engaged with fell down covering his head screaming, I would be tried for murder if I shot him dead. Yes, he COULD have been trying to fool me in order to activate his suicide vest when I let my guard down, but if investigation proves that I shot an unarmed man, I'd be going to prison.
Probably not -- it's likely to only get you reprimanded and even then only if it becomes an issue due to media coverage.
Now if that man was walking down the road, the insurgents started attacking your squad, the man ran off to the side cowering, and because he moved one of the insurgents shot your buddy rendering him unconscious but uninjured (due to his body armor) and after the fight you walked up to the man that ran out of the way who was now surrendering and shot him.. yeah that would probably get you a court martial.
I think a lot of people are missing the important point here. The monk isn't an outsider, either. He's not a paragon of good or even of law. He should be a paragon of discipline, but the outlook of every lawful neutral character is not the same.
I agree that it's a chaotic and evil action. If they determined the medusa couldn't fit into society and killed it because it was dangerous, that would probably be lawful and neutral (maybe evil still... I'd have to think).
Arguments that appeal to the "greater good," especially those that really mean protecting one nation or society, aren't really good. They're neutral at best. A good character might still do something where the ends justify the means, but he'll feel bad about it after the fact. A neutral character will say it was what needed to be done and be proud of being able to make the tough decisions. An evil character will find the most effective means of achieving his goals without it coming back and biting him and be glad that he got his.
That said, characters aren't formed by their alignment. Their personality determines their alignment. Complicated characters lead to complicated alignment decisions. For example, I could imagine a compulsive liar who supports the lawful king and runs a free clinic in town, all the while hating the dwarves who popped out of a tunnel near his parents' farm, eventually leading to other underground dwellers coming out and killing them in their sleep. Is this character good because of the caring for the poor? Is he evil because of the racism? Is he lawful because of his politics or chaotic because of his lying? If these are all of the factors, I'd probably put it at N or NG depending on how the hatred of dwarves manifests. If he runs an organization that strives to drive the dwarves out of town by various harassment/economic means, he might lean evil. Does that mean I shouldn't take my sick child to him? Maybe, maybe not. Likewise, if he just refuses treatment of dwarves (better to use those resources on more worthy visitors), he might be good and still turn away people who legitimately need help.
Monks and especially paladins are, of course, a special case. Unless he makes a habit of it, though, I don't even think you should be tracking evil points for the monk unless you also track good points (oh, you risked your life to rescue that orphan - watch out or you'll become good). If he consistently displays erratic behavior that the player can't justify then the character isn't justifying it, either. In that case, you're not out of line to say the monk cannot focus his mind to learn new abilities until he meditates or goes on a vision quest or some other mild atonement. I'd say the question of evil on this action isn't a big deal, though, since sometimes otherwise good people do bad things. That's called neutral.
nice stuff
The conversation is about the actions -- not the character or if the character should be punished for his actions.
I fully agree (and have stated from the beginning) that the monk probably shouldn't have his alignment changed, or be punished for one action that is out of context for his alignment. He had a hard day (yes I mean to pun), and reacted badly because of it. He did stop (which is important) and poor communication caused the fighter to kill the medusa.
I don't get why it bothers some of the posters so much that people view the above scenario as evil? It not like we are out to screw the players...my players know what kinda of game I run. They enjoy it.
Won't speak for everyone... but one of the things that bothers me about the 'all killing = evil' mentality is that it isn't realistic to the setting.
(not just in this thread... but lately arent' they REALLY all the same ;) )
I've seen people argueing that everytime a Paladin kills he needs atonement... That's just plain garbage. He's a KNIGHT... He has a SWORD... Higher level Paladins get BETTER swords... If they were designed as a class to be purely defensive... they would not a 'full BAB' class... It was said somewhere that the designers created the monk with a less-than-full Bab to signify his defensive nature...
Paladin's are OFFENSE.
The other problem I see with such a strict 'good/evil' guidelines... is it takes away a LOT of FUN... I'm one of the most merciful players in my games... but the guidelines here seem insane to me...
I play these games for FUN, not to go home and cry myself to sleep over whether I could have 'disarmed' the poor rampaging orc or not...
PART of the reason for Fantasy games is to put yourself in the role of 'hero' Unfortunately it seems like...
Fellowship of the Rings... All Evil (invaded the goblin's home of moria... the jerks)
Rebel Alliance.... All Evil (not EVERYONE on those death stars had tried to hurt them personally...)
Perseus... Evil (Why didn't he ASK the medusa to stop the kracken FOR him...)
Hercules... Ok, I'll give you that one... Go mad. Kill family... Atone...
Rambo... Evil
Everything with Arnold Schwartzenager... Evil
I think the ONLY truly good heroes out there may be the A-Team... They didn't kill or really hurt ANYONE... (the originals, the new guys are better shots...)
I guess my question is, who are YOUR characters based off of? Who are YOUR rolemodels? I admit when playing Superhero games... I'm 100% no body count... But in sword and sorcery?? The rules PENALIZE you for trying to pull your punches.. and MOST of the spells are lethal. (those that ARENT" like Charm person... I consider more 'evil' then Fireballs ;) )
|
|
The point is - you have six seconds to decide whether to trust and risk lives of your companions. And which would you prefer, possibly guilty conscience afterwards or being dead, along with your friends, with monsters dancing on your corpses?
Though, again, I would prefer in such a dubious case to render her incapable of inflicting harm without, if possible, endangering her life.
This is the reason during a hostage/rescue situation the noncombatants are usually restrained to prevent them from harming themselves or the rescuers.
Let me also reiterate my position:
The GM presented complex and mature situation, and then demanded combat time reactions, and then followed with a simplistic judgement call (alignment penalty).If it was me, I would say that mature gaming calls for mature treatment of subjects, and either request a break or apology, or leave the game.
1. Actually the GM stated he didn't change the monk's alignment. Many have stated that the monk's alignment should not change for this one action. As such you are misrepresenting others positions.
2. Damn if only you could do that in real life... request a break, or apology (for what?) or simply leave the game...
Well I guess you can do that last part, but I wouldn't recommend it.
I think the ONLY truly good heroes out there may be the A-Team... They didn't kill or really hurt ANYONE... (the originals, the new guys are better shots...)
MacGyver!
Anyway, back on (well, really more on than my last post) topic: intent is important. Lashing out against someone is quite possibly an evil act. Killing someone to protect others is probably not. Many examples exist in the literature of people seduced into evil by actions taken in the heat of the moment. The player didn't respond that he killed the medusa to prevent it from hurting others. He also showed that it was a random decision. Many people argue the medusa was dangerous and could have killed others. If it's not the reason he attacked her, it's not material to whether it was evil. I should mention that when I say evil, I really mean whether it should be weighing on the character's conscience, not whether the net effect is good. I tend to think of alignment as an outlook, not a scale (even if the outlook isn't necessarily conscious).
I've already said deeming it evil doesn't necessarily make it out of character for an LN (or even LG) character, so I won't repeat that argument.
I don't get why it bothers some of the posters so much that people view the above scenario as evil? It not like we are out to screw the players...my players know what kinda of game I run. They enjoy it.
Won't speak for everyone... but one of the things that bothers me about the 'all killing = evil' mentality is that it isn't realistic to the setting.
(not just in this thread... but lately arent' they REALLY all the same ;) )
I don't believe killing is evil automaticaly. Heck I believe it can be good in certain cases. It is just in this scenario the monks action were evil.
Heck I got into a big debate on the old WotC forums about my character killing a bunch of slavers in their sleep...defending it as not evil. As it was only way my character could have freed the slaves and stop what was going on.