** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
I used to think this way was alright, until my cousin's wife was raped and murdererd, and the killer got a crack lawyer to get him off with a few years, pleading temporary insanity and whatnot. Then my friend was raped and her father brutally beaten and robbed, both crimes in his apartment, neither crime was resolved by the police. It is hard to consider "reformation" when it is so close. And in both cases, these were known felons who repeated serious offenses, and the knowledge of this might have saved them all.
Not to mention that low priority crime has a pathetic resolve-rate in Norway. I have filed three cases with the police in my life. All left unresolved. Heck, even a retired cop who was watching someone break into his camper, take pictures that easily would have identified them, and called in while the robbery was in progress could not get a car to come over and arrest them, or even follow it up. Not enough man-power, and when it finally got relevant, the thieves had skipped town and was gone for good.
I agree that modern society and reformation cannot abide next to old west standards. But if we are to rely on the police and a justice system, I would like them to at least be somewhat competent, capable and funded. And when the pain of being victimized is eating you personally, I challenge anyone to not want to see the bastards pay for their crimes.
I also find it distasteful that having a conservative standpoint, no matter how well founded, automatically labels one as an idiot racist in our lands. But then again, no-one claimed that the left was any better than the right in this regard. Last election, the Norwegian labor party even gave out t-shirts saying "Vote red for solidarity, blue is selfish greed". So the baseless propaganda and profiling is everywhere, just that one has political correctness on it's side, which makes it "OK" somehow.
Not that voting will make any goddamn difference anymore, as we have degenerated into a poor mockery of the two-party system of the US. I cannot vote for any one party without having to deal with all the extreme yahoos I do NOT want to see empowered. But out of spite, I want to see the current ruling coalition fall, due to their blatant cheating to remain in power. Just before the election last year, they passed a bill that made votes from one specific northern county count double. Since it is such a large county with relatively few inhabitants. (Who mostly vote Labor, strangely enough).
As for the immigrants and crime, I am not talking primarily about legit immigrant families. I am talking about illegally immigrated thieves and vagabonds that come here explicitly to commit crime (sounds bad, but there are examples all over the news whenever a crime-wave happens), and even if they are caught, they will get more money from being in prison here than being unskilled labor in their home countries, so for them it is a win/win situation. And note that I specified violent crime. Violent robbery, rape and such. Gods know the locals stand for most of the non-violent crimes, like speeding, parking violations, moonshine production, tax evasion, public drunkenness, indecent exposure, drug abuse and whatnot. Not sticking that under a chair. And being married to an immigrant from a different continent, I am not exactly what you can call "racially motivated" in saying this.
Oh, and the standards of living being far superior for prisons and correction facilities compared to retirement homes makes me ticked off as well. A prison cell is a better place to live than a resthome room. How the heck is that a fair distribution of our tax-funds?
Anyway, rant done *phew*. Just needed to vent. And there no place like an alignment thread gone wild to do so :P
Lets see, on topic again:
Phantom: Paladins stab the big bad horrible things that are lunging their way for blood, or that he knows has done similar to others. Not sobbing balls of defeated and pleading non-combatants.
Ruemere: Giving into anger is not lawful. And no decision in game has ever been made in 6 seconds. I am pretty sure the GM would have mentioned it if he puts up a 6 second hourglass every time it is your turn, and demands that you decide on your action before the sand runs out. The player and the GM should sit down and discuss their thresholds for what constitutes alignment based actions. Killing someone who offers no resistance is hardly trivial.
TOZ: Which is why I suggested subdual damage earlier.
Perseus... Evil (Why didn't he ASK the medusa to stop the kracken FOR him...)
It should be pointed out that Perseus was working for Athena in the first place, the supposedly "good" goddess who turned Medusa into a monster for getting raped in Athena's temple.
It doesn't take much dot connecting to figure that Medusa was becoming an embarrassment for the "goddess of wisdom" and so she set Perseus up to take her out, with a fringe benefit of her head being the weapon used to take out Poseidon's pet kraken.
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?
If the player is trying to read the DM's mind he is probably metagaming.
How is he supposed to know medusasa are bad without metagaming? Now if you want to know if an individual can be trusted there is the "sense motive" skill.As a player in the same situation I would have made a sense motive check and gone from there. I don't need all of the DM's knowledge, just to ability to extract some of it from him in-game.
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 notThe 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.
Thanks, I missed that. At least if the DM threw in a random non-evil monster the player might have an excuse, but with him running monsters in such a way that they don't all fit the bestiary tag the players really don't have a leg to stand on.
OT:I also find it distasteful that having a conservative standpoint, no matter how well founded, automatically labels one as an idiot racist in our lands. But then again, no-one claimed that the left was any better than the right in this regard. Last election, the Norwegian labor party even gave out t-shirts saying "Vote red for solidarity, blue is selfish greed". So the baseless propaganda and profiling is everywhere, just that one has political correctness on it's side, which makes it "OK" somehow.
And that "political correctness" bullshit is just that - bullshit. Nothing is more politically correct than being right-wing these days - conservatives, even those with fascistoid tendencies, are gaining huge ground in all of Europe. It's easier for a semi-rasistic, ultraconservative group like the swedish Sverigedemokraterna to get on TV than it is for a communist. I know at least in Sweden, almost all newspapers (in fact, all the large ones except one) are right-wing; some liberal, some conservative, but all right-wing.
Today, being "politically correct" is praising free-market capitalism, individualism, "personal freedom" and so on - what's incorrect is critizising the current system at it's base. None of the conservative groups I know of do that, except for some really extreme nazi groups.
|
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?
So we have one anarchy that doesn't care what lives there, where are all of the enlightened good societies full of monsters?
How about quidera, the home of saerenrae? what is the monstrous population there?
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.
That quite succinctly sums up the situation. I really don't understand the people who'd go "KILL KILL KILL!" in that situation.
|
|
That quite succinctly sums up the situation. I really don't understand the people who'd go "KILL KILL KILL!" in that situation.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.
Do you understand that this is a creature with a reputation for deception that even at its weakest can kill with a glance, that the monk in question had already been petrified once, that maybe he feared it happening agian. Not that he was right to do so, but certainly understandable.
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?
So we have one anarchy that doesn't care what lives there, where are all of the enlightened good societies full of monsters?
How about quidera, the home of saerenrae? what is the monstrous population there?
Nobody is arguing the majority of those monsters are good. We(the player and GMs) know the majority of them are evil. The point is that not all of them are and since they are sentient and can possibly be reasoned with that killing them because they are species X is no better than killing a human or elf.
Having the monster tag applied does not mean your life does not matter.Was there a point behind your post?
What I just posted has been pointed out several times already.
Do you understand that this is a creature with a reputation for deception that even at its weakest can kill with a glance, that the monk in question had already been petrified once, that maybe he feared it happening agian. Not that he was right to do so, but certainly understandable.That quite succinctly sums up the situation. I really don't understand the people who'd go "KILL KILL KILL!" in that situation.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.
According to the OP the medusa's face was covered so it could not have happened again. She was restained so she could not have removed the mask. If she could have done that she could have escaped before the PC's got there, and would not have been in the condition she was when the PC's showed up.
Do you understand that this is a creature with a reputation for deception that even at its weakest can kill with a glance, that the monk in question had already been petrified once, that maybe he feared it happening agian. Not that he was right to do so, but certainly understandable.
That quite succinctly sums up the situation. I really don't understand the people who'd go "KILL KILL KILL!" in that situation.
understandable and correct, or good, or even neutral are not the same thing.
Understandable, and 'reasonable' are words used to justify actions.
If the action needs justification then it wasn't right in the first place and only in a specific case does it become acceptable.
Acceptable doesn't mean the same thing as right/good/correct either, it simply means that the reasons provide are ones that make logical sense from as far as they go.
Do you understand that this is a creature with a reputation for deception that even at its weakest can kill with a glance, that the monk in question had already been petrified once, that maybe he feared it happening agian. Not that he was right to do so, but certainly understandable.
Yeah, like in the real world, we can freely kill romani people if they carry a gun. Ye know, the whole "reputation for deception" thing and all. Oh wait - people are RACIST! Could it be that reputations about races (or species) aren't to be trusted? Yes, we as players and GM's can read the bestiary and know that many medusa are evil, but the player characters just has ingame knowledge of it, and thus, only rumors of how medusa are. And they've probably heard a lot of rumors about untrustworthy elves too. And many elves are magic users that can kill with but a word. Also, some PC's may have died before and fear it happening again. So, it's free for all to kill elves because they 1. have a reputation for deception (at least among dwarves...), 2. can kill you very easily and 3. you might have suffered that fate and aren't to happy on repeating it.
EDIT: And sure, it's understandable. It's also understandable how someone who's horny and into dominant sex can rape an unconscious person. It's understandable how someone could falsely accuse a whole ethnic group of malevolence to win political points. Understandable doesn't in any way equal good or even acceptable.
The GM presented complex and mature situation, and then demanded combat time reactions, and then followed with a simplistic judgement call (alignment penalty).
I'm going to take a moment to defend myself by saying that I did not hold the monk's decision to attack the medusa against him when he faced the Forbiddance. It did damage to him as it would any other LN character. The Forbiddance did not treat him as evil.
As GM, I look for patterns of behavior. If I see a player with Alignment A consistently behaving in a way that I think is more like Alignment B, I'll talk to the player and see what he/she thinks. Unless it's a paladin or similar class, no big deal, we just need to agree on what your alignment is for when it becomes an issue when dealing with spells and the like. Even if it is a paladin, the player may be able to make a strong case for why he/she thinks the behaviors are alignment appropriate. I'm an open-minded guy, so even if I disagree, I might allow it if it is well-reasoned.
I know I'm not the first GM to say that fun is paramount at my table. I also understand that what's fun for me may not be fun for my players (and what's fun for us may not be fun for others). Something fun for me that isn't fun for my players doesn't pass the litmus test for fun. I recognize when my own players aren't having fun, and I'm not going to let a little thing like alignment get in the way of me fixing that. We can always work something out. So no, I didn't slap his wrist with an extra fine at the Forbiddance.
Like some people are saying on this thread, the situation was difficult. It's easy to armchair judge the motivations of a character who had only 6 seconds to decide what to do in a murky situation (sure the player had longer, but I don't think he was carefully planning his move. He was watching the game, helping look up rules, laughing at jokes, etc.). Here he was in this dark, frightening prison, mutant humans crawling on the walls and swarming the party, a sickening birth, the shock of the reality of what was going on, a sudden petrification, and a rabid beast goring people (I think I mentioned already: two PCs "rode the horn" in the course of this encounter). All this in the context of a prison where almost everyone and everything they had encountered up to that point had been sadistic and violent. Things were quite often not as they seemed at first to be. I had the players right where I wanted them: they thought the GM was trying to kill their characters. So yeah, she begged for mercy, but in the spur of the moment, what do you do? Six seconds while in action is not a lot of time to weigh ethical implications.
I'm not saying his actions were wrong or right, good or evil. I honestly don't know for sure myself. The idea to have her beg for mercy popped into me noggin right then and there, and I thought he'd be lenient. I was wrong, but I don't think that makes his decision wrong. It was a challenging call to make, and not one that I, as GM, would hold against him unless it was part of a pattern of behaviors that he and I agreed were not consistent with his stated alignment.
Quite frankly, I doubt he anticipated that he'd be having to make these kinds of decisions when he opted to join our group in January. He was expecting standard dungeon crawl kinds of fare, not ethical thought experiments. He has told me that he is pleasantly surprised, so I suppose I'll keep on doing it, if I'm able to.
It's funny...when I designed this encounter, I wasn't striving for any moral gray area. I was shooting for the gross-out factor, plain and simple (that, and I wanted it to be a challenging tactical encounter). Mostly I wanted a visual that would stick with them for years to come. Mission accomplished, I hope.
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?
You are phrasing the question intentionally in a way which cannot be answered. The original dilemma, however, was that the Medusa pretty clearly was helpless and begging for mercy. I quote:
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.
Despite her pleas, the lawful neutral monk spends a ki point and wails on her. She has not violated any laws that he can cite, but he's in a bit of a snit because her foul baby petrified him, and he's just been restored. Is his attack on the medusa an evil act?
That she was raped is not entirely clear from the description and the flavor text the OP cited later on in the thread. But she was surrendering and did not try to harm anyone. What the monk did was a chaotic *and* evil deed.
If they're only slightly disruptive, a simple request to stop should be enough. ;)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. ^^
Not really. To phrase it otherwise "If not reigned in, these players would often use the game to vent their frustrations in life by playing more than slightly dickish characters". It probably doesn't help that they are all RP veterans of 15-20 years and I don't allow evil characters at my table. ^^
|
Perseus... Evil (Why didn't he ASK the medusa to stop the kracken FOR him...)It should be pointed out that Perseus was working for Athena in the first place, the supposedly "good" goddess who turned Medusa into a monster for getting raped in Athena's temple.
It doesn't take much dot connecting to figure that Medusa was becoming an embarrassment for the "goddess of wisdom" and so she set Perseus up to take her out, with a fringe benefit of her head being the weapon used to take out Poseidon's pet kraken.
Also, by all accounts of that story, the Medusa shot first. Didn't bother asking what the guys wanted, just started shooting and turning people to stone.
|
|
Do you understand that this is a creature with a reputation for deception that even at its weakest can kill with a glance, that the monk in question had already been petrified once, that maybe he feared it happening agian. Not that he was right to do so, but certainly understandable.Yeah, like in the real world, we can freely kill romani people if they carry a gun. Ye know, the whole "reputation for deception" thing and all. Oh wait - people are RACIST! Could it be that reputations about races (or species) aren't to be trusted? Yes, we as players and GM's can read the bestiary and know that many medusa are evil, but the player characters just has ingame knowledge of it, and thus, only rumors of how medusa are. And they've probably heard a lot of rumors about untrustworthy elves too. And many elves are magic users that can kill with but a word. Also, some PC's may have died before and fear it happening again. So, it's free for all to kill elves because they 1. have a reputation for deception (at least among dwarves...), 2. can kill you very easily and 3. you might have suffered that fate and aren't to happy on repeating it.
EDIT: And sure, it's understandable. It's also understandable how someone who's horny and into dominant sex can rape an unconscious person. It's understandable how someone could falsely accuse a whole ethnic group of malevolence to win political points. Understandable doesn't in any way equal good or even acceptable.
Wow, there isn't a facepalm hard enough for how stupid that was
|
|
The GM presented complex and mature situation, and then demanded combat time reactions, and then followed with a simplistic judgement call (alignment penalty).I'm going to take a moment to defend myself by saying that I did not hold the monk's decision to attack the medusa against him when he faced the Forbiddance. It did damage to him as it would any other LN character. The Forbiddance did not treat him as evil.
As GM, I look for patterns of behavior. If I see a player with Alignment A consistently behaving in a way that I think is more like Alignment B, I'll talk to the player and see what he/she thinks. Unless it's a paladin or similar class, no big deal, we just need to agree on what your alignment is for when it becomes an issue when dealing with spells and the like. Even if it is a paladin, the player may be able to make a strong case for why he/she thinks the behaviors are alignment appropriate. I'm an open-minded guy, so even if I disagree, I might allow it if it is well-reasoned.
I know I'm not the first GM to say that fun is paramount at my table. I also understand that what's fun for me may not be fun for my players (and what's fun for us may not be fun for others). Something fun for me that isn't fun for my players doesn't pass the litmus test for fun. I recognize when my own players aren't having fun, and I'm not going to let a little thing like alignment get in the way of me fixing that. We can always work something out. So no, I didn't slap his wrist with an extra fine at the Forbiddance.
Like some people are saying on this thread, the situation was difficult. It's easy to armchair judge the motivations of a character who had only 6 seconds to decide what to do in a murky situation (sure the player had longer, but I don't think he was carefully planning his move. He was watching the game, helping look up rules, laughing at jokes, etc.). Here he was in this dark, frightening prison, mutant humans crawling on the walls and swarming the...
I think this post is right on and kinda makes the rest of the thread piontless. You are one of the few to take the characters veiw over the players into consideration.
Do you understand that this is a creature with a reputation for deception that even at its weakest can kill with a glance, that the monk in question had already been petrified once, that maybe he feared it happening agian. Not that he was right to do so, but certainly understandable.
I read what the OP wrote throughout the thread. Sorry, I don't support pre-emptive execution of rape victims. Especially with the heroic motive of "spite". >.<
It's easy to armchair judge the motivations of a character who had only 6 seconds to decide what to do in a murky situation (sure the player had longer, but I don't think he was carefully planning his move. He was watching the game, helping look up rules, laughing at jokes, etc.).
That does not square. The player did have the time to consider the action of his character. He deliberately chose to have his character beat on a cowering woman who was at his mercy out of spite. How is that not premeditated? The action of the character was clearly evil and later chaotic. The player chose to let the character act that way. And he did have way more than six seconds to decide about that.
|
It's easy to armchair judge the motivations of a character who had only 6 seconds to decide what to do in a murky situation (sure the player had longer, but I don't think he was carefully planning his move. He was watching the game, helping look up rules, laughing at jokes, etc.).That does not square. The player did have the time to consider the action of his character. He deliberately chose to have his character beat on a cowering woman who was at his mercy out of spite. How is that not premeditated? The action of the character was clearly evil and later chaotic. The player chose to let the character act that way. And he did have way more than six seconds to decide about that.
Chill, it wasn't a real medusa and it is his game. I'm sure he's in a better position to judge the situation :)
|
understandable and correct, or good, or even neutral are not the same thing.
Understandable, and 'reasonable' are words used to justify actions.
If the action needs justification then it wasn't right in the first place and only in a specific case does it become acceptable.
Acceptable doesn't mean the same thing as right/good/correct either, it simply means that the reasons provide are ones that make logical sense from as far as they go.
You just like arguing both sides don't you.
Also, by all accounts of that story, the Medusa shot first. Didn't bother asking what the guys wanted, just started shooting and turning people to stone.Perseus... Evil (Why didn't he ASK the medusa to stop the kracken FOR him...)It should be pointed out that Perseus was working for Athena in the first place, the supposedly "good" goddess who turned Medusa into a monster for getting raped in Athena's temple.
It doesn't take much dot connecting to figure that Medusa was becoming an embarrassment for the "goddess of wisdom" and so she set Perseus up to take her out, with a fringe benefit of her head being the weapon used to take out Poseidon's pet kraken.
A nice point to turn things around actually -- so you're this girl who gets used by a god, and then transformed by another god, and left with your ugly self (and two other gorgons by the way) all by your onsie. Every now and then someone with the 'hero' bug up their butt decides to come to your home and tries to kill you.
Somehow it isn't 'reasonable' that you would learn to defend yourself and not trust these evil humans that keep trying to come and kill you? Especially after the gods themselves have used you and then punished you for being the victim of their use?
|
|
It's easy to armchair judge the motivations of a character who had only 6 seconds to decide what to do in a murky situation (sure the player had longer, but I don't think he was carefully planning his move. He was watching the game, helping look up rules, laughing at jokes, etc.).That does not square. The player did have the time to consider the action of his character. He deliberately chose to have his character beat on a cowering woman who was at his mercy out of spite. How is that not premeditated? The action of the character was clearly evil and later chaotic. The player chose to let the character act that way. And he did have way more than six seconds to decide about that.
You do realize you are arguing with the OP, the only person with knowledge of what actually happened in THE SCENARIO THAT ISN'T ACTUALLY REAL AND IS ONLY BASED ON THE VARIABLES HE DESCRIBED.
I felt caps were better than bold.
Seriously, people. Stop projecting the world of illusion into real world ethical decisions. Every hero would be in jail by our legal standards.
Every. Single. One.
OT:No, having a conservative standpoint doesn't label one an idiot racist. However, falsely (or at least without any sources) claiming that 70-80% of all violent crimes are by immigrants may cause you to gain that label, or at least people's suspicion of your motifs. Not saying you're a racist, but spreading propaganda created by racists means you've probably either been fooled by them or you at least lean somewhat that way. There's a reason people seeing you from the outside might think you're racist, even if you don't see yourself that way.And that "political correctness" b%%#@%%+ is just that - b#@$!~@@. Nothing is more politically correct than being right-wing these days - conservatives, even those with fascistoid tendencies, are gaining huge ground in all of Europe. It's easier for a semi-rasistic, ultraconservative group like the swedish Sverigedemokraterna to get on TV than it is for a communist. I know at least in Sweden, almost all newspapers (in fact, all the large ones except one) are right-wing; some liberal, some conservative, but all right-wing.
Today, being "politically correct" is praising free-market capitalism, individualism, "personal freedom" and so on - what's incorrect is critizising the current system at it's base. None of the conservative groups I know of do that, except for some really extreme nazi groups.
Funny that PC means different things in different countries. Here in Norway, there is nothing more politically incorrect than "racism" and being right-wing still, and admitting that you vote FrP (progress party, which admittedly has some nut-jobs in their ranks) is like admitting you have leprosy in certain settings, and the extreme right wings like Hvit Valg-Allianse (White Election Alliance, that went out and said that criminal immigrants should be deported without a second chance, and all non-working immigrants sterilized), are not even recognized as a real party (thank the gods).
Of course, TV coverage has hardly anything to do with what is relevant any more. The executives know that having a bunch of political crazy people on TV will garner ratings, and that is all that matters in the end. It is like Jerry Springer, only with ill educated political nuts instead of ill educated perverts and deviants.
|
|
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.
1. Giving birth ritualistically to an abomination that the PC's suddenly came upon and were interrupting, one of them being petrified in the process.
You seem to overlook that part. It wasn't like they came to a hospital an a nice lady was giving birth, so they set the baby on fire and beat her to death.
You just like arguing both sides don't you.
That quite succinctly sums up the situation. I really don't understand the people who'd go "KILL KILL KILL!" in that situation.Do you understand that this is a creature with a reputation for deception that even at its weakest can kill with a glance, that the monk in question had already been petrified once, that maybe he feared it happening agian. Not that he was right to do so, but certainly understandable.
understandable and correct, or good, or even neutral are not the same thing.Understandable, and 'reasonable' are words used to justify actions.
If the action needs justification then it wasn't right in the first place and only in a specific case does it become acceptable.
Acceptable doesn't mean the same thing as right/good/correct either, it simply means that the reasons provide are ones that make logical sense from as far as they go.
I like people thinking critically on the issue.
I've already stated I can understand why the monk acted like he did. I also understand that he doesn't deserve an alignment change over one bad day.
I also understand that his action was evil. The fact that the action was evil doesn't mean he is a bad guy, or that it isn't understandable -- just that from a 'good' point of view it was the wrong choice.
The amazing thing about 'good' is that mercy and forgiveness part. The fact that the monk can act like he did and still be forgiven and given the chance to do better in the future.
"Eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind."
I'm a bit annoyed at Andrew R actually over his complete disregard for actual ability to discuss this reasonably or discuss a point without throwing it to the absolute extreme position -- but then again such behaviors have been on a disturbing rise in the USA recently so I can forgive and forget.
Besides, "If gold rusts, what shall iron do?"
It's easy to armchair judge the motivations of a character who had only 6 seconds to decide what to do in a murky situation (sure the player had longer, but I don't think he was carefully planning his move. He was watching the game, helping look up rules, laughing at jokes, etc.).That does not square. The player did have the time to consider the action of his character. He deliberately chose to have his character beat on a cowering woman who was at his mercy out of spite. How is that not premeditated? The action of the character was clearly evil and later chaotic. The player chose to let the character act that way. And he did have way more than six seconds to decide about that.
Premeditated means that you planned out the action. The planning and the action have to happen at separate times. For instance, if you're sitting at home and pull out paper and pencil and start planning a bank robbery, that's premeditated. If instead, you arrive at the teller's window, discover your account is empty and in a fit of desperation decide to rob the place, that is not premeditated.
Something may be a deliberate choice, but that does not have the same meaning as the word "premeditated".
|
|
I like people thinking critically on the issue.
I've already stated I can understand why the monk acted like he did. I also understand that he doesn't deserve an alignment change over one bad day.
I also understand that his action was evil. The fact that the action was evil doesn't mean he is a bad guy, or that it isn't understandable -- just that from a 'good' point of view it was the wrong choice.
The amazing thing about 'good' is that mercy and forgiveness part. The fact that the monk can act like he did and still be forgiven and given the chance to do better in the future.
"Eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind."
I'm a bit annoyed at Andrew R actually over his complete disregard for actual ability to discuss this reasonably or discuss a point without throwing it to the absolute extreme position -- but then again such behaviors have been on a disturbing rise in the USA recently so I can forgive and forget.
Besides, "If gold rusts, what shall iron do?"
Yes philosophy major, we all get the world is shades of grey.
But there was a base question, specifically should he punish his player by changing alignment because this was an evil act.
And the answer is no for any one of the following reasons.
1) You can argue it isn't an evil act.
2) You can argue from the players perspective it wasn't an evil act.
3) You can argue the player believed they were serving the greater good.
4) etc...etc...etc...
You can argue that Link was the one who caused all the problems in the Ocarina of Time. You can even argue from the monster point of view Link is a big dick who served the evil kingdom that committed genocide against Ganon and his people.
Mental masturbate away.
But the facts are this is a game, and the players of the game have weapons made to kill "Bad Guys", and based on even a high school understanding of greek mythology, Medusa = "Bad Guy".
If it was made explicit that this particular Medusa was not evil, the players could be expected to adapt to that bit of information. But when they come upon
"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, mistakingly fixes its lurid gaze upon you.
Fortitude check."
The only hint that she isn't with the things that we would all agree (I think) are "Bad guys" is the chain.
That's it. That is what was read to them.
The rest we know, because the OP told us the back story. But what the players know is above. It is the birth of evil, leading to a fight against a large number of things, of which she got caught in the fog of war.
You seem to be trying to play Devil's Advocate, but taking no actual stand on the issue.
This is not an unusual position for you I've noticed.
|
|
You just like arguing both sides don't you.
That quite succinctly sums up the situation. I really don't understand the people who'd go "KILL KILL KILL!" in that situation.Do you understand that this is a creature with a reputation for deception that even at its weakest can kill with a glance, that the monk in question had already been petrified once, that maybe he feared it happening agian. Not that he was right to do so, but certainly understandable.
understandable and correct, or good, or even neutral are not the same thing.Understandable, and 'reasonable' are words used to justify actions.
If the action needs justification then it wasn't right in the first place and only in a specific case does it become acceptable.
Acceptable doesn't mean the same thing as right/good/correct either, it simply means that the reasons provide are ones that make logical sense from as far as they go.
I like people thinking critically on the issue.
I've already stated I can understand why the monk acted like he did. I also understand that he doesn't deserve an alignment change over one bad day.
I also understand that his action was evil. The fact that the action was evil doesn't mean he is a bad guy, or that it isn't understandable -- just that from a 'good' point of view it was the wrong choice.
The amazing thing about 'good' is that mercy and forgiveness part. The fact that the monk can act like he did and still be forgiven and given the chance to do better in the future.
"Eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind."
I'm a bit annoyed at Andrew R actually over his complete disregard for actual ability to discuss this reasonably or discuss a point without throwing it to the absolute extreme position -- but then again such behaviors have been on a disturbing rise in the USA recently so I can forgive and forget.
Besides, "If gold rusts, what shall iron do?"
I have no problem discussing this at all, i am just getting tired of the extreme expectations of good and that anything less than saintly must be evil.
|
|
A nice point to turn things around actually -- so you're this girl who gets used by a god, and then transformed by another god, and left with your ugly self (and two other gorgons by the way) all by your onsie. Every now and then someone with the 'hero' bug up their butt decides to come to your home and tries to kill you.
Somehow it isn't 'reasonable' that you would learn to defend yourself and not trust these evil humans that keep trying to come and kill you? Especially after the gods themselves have used you and then punished you for being the victim of their use?
I suppose that's true, but if she were actually good she would have asked what they wanted first, now if she was neutral it's just self-defense. Shame Perseus didn't think to ask, maybe he could have saved his friends. Then again, Perseus wasn't "paid" to think. The Medusa in the newer Clash of the Titans was having way too much fun, she was clearly evil, but I wonder if the traditional one was.... Oh well, not my problem.
The fact that this thread has gone on for so long is ridiculous. Rationalizing murder of innocents is evil, no matter how you look at it, the best response would have been to ask the Medusa to blindfold herself, if she agrees then treat her like a person, if she doesn't then treat her like a prisoner. While the monk doesn't net an alignment shift, he should have earned a slap on the back of his head for acting like such a jerk.
This thread has meandered through some unwelcome territory, even moreso than most alignment threads. I'm going to go ahead and lock it. Make another thread if there is still something that requires discussion.