Refusal to Show Mercy... Evil?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 532 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Lvl 12 Procrastinator wrote:

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?

It matters, because there's a Forbiddance he has to pass...

In short: Going by this description, it is an evil act.

However, I would consider it odd if the act made the monk's alignment slide unless the monk has been consistently behaving in a manner that would be considered evil.

In long:

Relevant rules:

PRD wrote:


Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

The monk did not show respect for life nor concern for the dignity of a sentient being. A very sentient being was enslaved, shackled and in obvious pain, and was not endangering anyone--she didn't even hurt him, her offspring accidentally did it, and he was restored, so no lasting harm was done to him. He is also holding her responsible for her child which I gather was the product of rape. REALLY, REALLY no evidence of respect for life or concern for the dignity of sentient beings that I can see here.

PRD wrote:


Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

AS FAR AS I CAN TELL (take this with a grain of salt), he killed her because she indirectly inconvenienced him. He killed her because she was part of a chain of events that temporarily incapacitated him. This is a very extreme response, and I would say that this definitely goes in the category of being compassionless and killing out of convenience.

Quote:
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

My interpretation: A neutral character would probably not commit to killing the medusa unless she was a threat, which according to the description above, she was not.

Quote:

Lawful Neutral: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

Interpretation: killing a chained, helpless slave begging for mercy normally does not fall into most definitions of "honorable." (It might, depending, fall into the definition of "zealot" depending on the source of his zeal.)

Were the monk acting according to his chosen alignment, likely he would have consulted with the customs and strictures by which he generally defines his behavior; I would be very surprised if such "order" would include clauses encouraging the killing of slaves simply because they were forced to birth an entirely different creature which attacked him.

This is my interpretation, of course.

Still, a few things to remember in dealing with the repercussions of this:

PRD, emphasis mine wrote:


Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
PRD wrote:


In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.

It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner.

I would discuss this with the player. If this is typical behavior for the character, then it may indicate a need for an alignment shift--but in this case, it should be made clear that this is not a punishment but simply updating the character sheet to make it more accurate. (If the storyline does cause problems this will need to be worked out carefully.)

If this is atypical, the player still needs to be aware that the GM considers this an evil act and that similar acts which become habitual could result in an alignment shift (but again, that an alignment shift is not a punishment). The player and/or character likely overly freaked out about the petrification. And to be fair, I might start punching things if I realized I'd just been turned to stone--it's a pretty scary thing.

I'll also note that if the circumstances were different---if the medusa was clearly in serious pain and being used horribly, a character might kill her to put her out of her misery. This is a morally ambiguous act but would cast the situation in a very different light regardless.


Ravingdork wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
A lack of mercy isn't evil, it just isn't nice either. Lawful Good characters can be absolutely brutal jerks. Look at Batman. He tries to follow the law (except the whole vigilante part) and he does it specifically to help people. That's law and good. However, he's still a colossal jerk.
In fact, batman is SUCH A HUGE JERK, the mighty Darkseid himself surrendered his plans to him for fear that Batman would destroy his planet! That is something Superman and the other heroes would NEVER do, something that Darkseid readily identified as "an admirable quality" unique to the JERKIEST of superheroes: Batman.

This is why Batman is the only DC "superhero" who rocks.

Silver Crusade

Lvl 12 Procrastinator wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
I'm wondering exactly what sort of creature the BBEG was that his spawn, upon birth, was able to run around petrifying adventurers.

Not exactly running around. Here was the description, read aloud to the players (only one of whom was in position to have to make the save):

** spoiler omitted **

In fairness, minions and such had to make the save too. As for the mask, she was able to remove it during the chaos that followed while Orox was goring people with his horn.

Good God. Flat out evil act.


I don't think this is an evil act.

Mercy can be the hallmark of a good character; so can a sense of justice, and these are generally contradictory ideals.

Not that I get a strong justice vibe from the description of the monk, mind you -- but I think choosing to punish evil and/or choosing to act in a way that minimizes harm to innocents at the cost of harming someone deserving can very much be within the scope of the good alignment.

Otherwise, evil always wins because good is dumb. :)


Mikaze wrote:
Lvl 12 Procrastinator wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
I'm wondering exactly what sort of creature the BBEG was that his spawn, upon birth, was able to run around petrifying adventurers.

Not exactly running around. Here was the description, read aloud to the players (only one of whom was in position to have to make the save):

** spoiler omitted **

In fairness, minions and such had to make the save too. As for the mask, she was able to remove it during the chaos that followed while Orox was goring people with his horn.

Good God. Flat out evil act.

Yeah, the more details he hands out, the more I'm leaning towards Chaotic Evil.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
A lack of mercy isn't evil, it just isn't nice either. Lawful Good characters can be absolutely brutal jerks. Look at Batman. He tries to follow the law (except the whole vigilante part) and he does it specifically to help people. That's law and good. However, he's still a colossal jerk.
In fact, batman is SUCH A HUGE JERK, the mighty Darkseid himself surrendered his plans to him for fear that Batman would destroy his planet! That is something Superman and the other heroes would NEVER do, something that Darkseid readily identified as "an admirable quality" unique to the JERKIEST of superheroes: Batman.

He was bluffing, he'd never set them all off. Even he's not that big of a jerk, though he is a pretty big jerk, also people make fun of that movie all the time, because it's not very good.

Grand Lodge

mdt wrote:


Yeah, the more details he hands out, the more I'm leaning towards Chaotic Evil.

+1


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kais86 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
A lack of mercy isn't evil, it just isn't nice either. Lawful Good characters can be absolutely brutal jerks. Look at Batman. He tries to follow the law (except the whole vigilante part) and he does it specifically to help people. That's law and good. However, he's still a colossal jerk.
In fact, batman is SUCH A HUGE JERK, the mighty Darkseid himself surrendered his plans to him for fear that Batman would destroy his planet! That is something Superman and the other heroes would NEVER do, something that Darkseid readily identified as "an admirable quality" unique to the JERKIEST of superheroes: Batman.
He was bluffing, he'd never set them all off. Even he's not that big of a jerk, though he is a pretty big jerk, also people make fun of that movie all the time, because it's not very good.

Why wouldn't he? There literally is no downside to ridding the universe of Darkseid and his entire empire of evil.


Dire Mongoose wrote:

I don't think this is an evil act.

Mercy can be the hallmark of a good character; so can a sense of justice, and these are generally contradictory ideals.

Not that I get a strong justice vibe from the description of the monk, mind you -- but I think choosing to punish evil and/or choosing to act in a way that minimizes harm to innocents at the cost of harming someone deserving can very much be within the scope of the good alignment.

Otherwise, evil always wins because good is dumb. :)

Very much no. This sentiment is at best neutral. A Good guy will find the third option.

Which is why good is harder to play than neutral or evil -- being good requires good acts. Not "understandable" ones, not "neutral ones" but actively good acts including the possibility of sacrifice to help another.

Now offering the medusa a different life through a reincarnation could work if the medusa agrees to it understanding what would be needed in order for her to be reincarnated.

Evil only wins when neutrals don't understand the difference between good and evil -- Good can't be neutral, and can't do evil -- by definition that is 'not good'. Good requires work -- evil and neutral doesn't.

Silver Crusade

To add to that, good means not defaulting to convenience.

Good also requires empathy for others.


Lvl 12 Procrastinator wrote:
Stuff

The answer.

That's the way some people play. Is it right? Not imo.

Alignment change my butt, LN is a typical alignment of soldiers, he's just finishing the enemy. Many medusa are depicted as naked anyway, the heroes have no way of telling that she's a prisoner. If she was in a cage and had a bag over her head (and a complete non-threat), maybe.

Just because she's a captive doesn't mean she's not evil, doesn't mean she won't turn on the PCs at the first opportunity, it means nothing really.

None of us can really answer the question because none of us know the events leading up to the encounter with the medusa. Did she simply lose initiative, get burnt by the fireball? Or was she completely helpless the entire time?

Smart villains, use lies and deception (like crying, pretending to be a captive or weak), to get a tactical advantage. That medusa has a much better chance of TPKing the party if she feigns weakness for a bit and lies and strikes at an opportune time.


mdt wrote:
She gave birth to an abomination because she was a slave, who was being forced to breed by the BBEG. If she'd been a human who'd birthed an abomination after being raped by the BBEGs monsters, you'd beat her to death as well?

Yeah, I missed that part. Mea culpa.

I'd have beaten her to death for being a Medusa, but I don't even pretend to be Good. Even if she isn't personally Evil, she kills people by looking at them; she kills people accidentally just because she exists. Therefore, she needs to stop existing.

That's Lawful Neutral. If she weren't a Medusa, dangerous by sole virtue of existence, I'd accept this as an Evil act.

mdt wrote:
As to chaotic, I believe it's chaotic because the Monk took his anger out on someone who didn't cause him any harm, and then let a freaking coin flip (die roll) decide his actions.

The player rolled the dice. I'm assuming the Monk didn't.


Viktyr Korimir wrote:
mdt wrote:
She gave birth to an abomination because she was a slave, who was being forced to breed by the BBEG. If she'd been a human who'd birthed an abomination after being raped by the BBEGs monsters, you'd beat her to death as well?

Yeah, I missed that part. Mea culpa.

I'd have beaten her to death for being a Medusa, but I don't even pretend to be Good. Even if she isn't personally Evil, she kills people by looking at them; she kills people accidentally just because she exists. Therefore, she needs to stop existing.

That's Lawful Neutral. If she weren't a Medusa, dangerous by sole virtue of existence, I'd accept this as an Evil act.

That's more chaotic evil honestly. In a world where stone to flesh spells are fairly easy to find, she doesn't kill people, she can inconvenience someone by accident if she doesn't cover her eyes.

Viktyr Korimir wrote:


mdt wrote:
As to chaotic, I believe it's chaotic because the Monk took his anger out on someone who didn't cause him any harm, and then let a freaking coin flip (die roll) decide his actions.
The player rolled the dice. I'm assuming the Monk didn't.

If the player is leaving it up to chance, then that's the character leaving it up to chance. I'm sorry, but leaving a life and death decision up to a flippant roll of the dice is chaotic.

Contributor

Jason S wrote:
Lvl 12 Procrastinator wrote:
Stuff

The answer.

That's the way some people play. Is it right? Not imo.

Alignment change my butt, LN is a typical alignment of soldiers, he's just finishing the enemy. Many medusa are depicted as naked anyway, the heroes have no way of telling that she's a prisoner. If she was in a cage and had a bag over her head (and a complete non-threat), maybe.

Just because she's a captive doesn't mean she's not evil, doesn't mean she won't turn on the PCs at the first opportunity, it means nothing really.

None of us can really answer the question because none of us know the events leading up to the encounter with the medusa. Did she simply lose initiative, get burnt by the fireball? Or was she completely helpless the entire time?

Smart villains, use lies and deception (like crying, pretending to be a captive or weak), to get a tactical advantage. That medusa has a much better chance of TPKing the party if she feigns weakness for a bit and lies and strikes at an opportune time.

There's "feigning weakness" and then there's suspending disbelief until it's hung by the neck until dead.

Are you honestly arguing that the medusa was the true BBEG and she had choreographed her morlock minions as well as her three-eyed four-armed unicorn-headed abomination boy toy to chain her up and put a mask on her while she delivered their love child, because she was a nasty girl and into that sort of kink and it would totally make it believable when she told the adventurers that the abomination had enslaved her when she got on her knees weeping for them to spare her?

I think Pinky and the Brain have had plots that were less convoluted.

And if that's what the PCs actually believed, they should have been rescuing the abomination, the baby abomination, and the morlocks from the vile medusa who had enslaved them to enact the Byzantine convolutions of her nefarious schemes.


Jason S wrote:


None of us can really answer the question because none of us know the events leading up to the encounter with the medusa.

You should read the thread before you post then. Everyone else knows what led up to the encounter with the medusa because we read the thread.

I started out saying neutral probably, but with the details painted in, it became more and more chaotic evil.

Grand Lodge

mdt wrote:


If the player is leaving it up to chance, then that's the character leaving it up to chance.

I disagree. That's the player not knowing his character well enough. The character never had a 'will I/won't I?' moment. The player just didn't know which would be in character and left it to chance. In the game world, there was never a question of what the character would do.


Maybe the monk decided after weighing the pros and cons? In the actual game, he didn't kill her. Rolling high meant that the pros to letting her live were a little weightier than the cons. So she lived. If the cons had been more compelling, she'd be dead. This is kind of one of those areas I try to avoid in my games. Being confused about how a character should act based on alignment is not so fun. Alignment should be a little more hard and fast, and the gray areas really shouldn't matter. If you have to consult the internet, it's best to just let it slide.

Unless you're a paladin, in which case just search the message boards and put on flame retardant sun glasses.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
Why wouldn't he? There literally is no downside to ridding the universe of Darkseid and his entire empire of evil.

Same reason he hasn't just killed the Joker yet, he has a code against killing, while it doesn't apply to aliens, many of the individuals on Apocalypse are human, thus it would apply. Not that anyone but Superman knows that, for all everyone knows, Batman is the hardest mofo in the universe, and daring him to do something is a quick way to get him to do it.


Mikaze wrote:

To add to that, good means not defaulting to convenience.

Good also requires empathy for others.

But that empathy also applies to the victims of evil.

At this point the OP has added enough extra details that I'm not defending the monk in his story as good -- but I do believe that the greatest good doesn't always come from being merciful rather than just.

Silver Crusade

Dire Mongoose wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

To add to that, good means not defaulting to convenience.

Good also requires empathy for others.

But that empathy also applies to the victims of evil.

I'd say the medusa qualifies.

Hard to see anything just about the deed.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The quick and dirty definition that I use for my games (using OP situation as litmus test):

Good: Actively showing mercy, healing the medusa, or letting her go.

Neutral: Doing nothing, killing the medusa quickly (she is a dangerous monster after all, despite her unfortunate circumstance).

Evil: Actively torturing the medusa.

For the record it sounds like the monk has just hit his breaking point (having been petrified and all). Essentially the monk is a victim too, and would likely be terrified of being turned to stone again - that particular brand of monster is just something he's got a legitimate prejudice against.


I would not say that refusal to show mercy is an evil act. If the monk had decided to kill her because he though she might be dangerous; not evil to kill her. However he killed her because she ticked him off, and that is both chaotic and evil.


Lvl 12 Procrastinator wrote:

Is his attack on the medusa an evil act?

It matters, because there's a Forbiddance he has to pass...

If you told the player in advance (before the action was final and dice were rolled) that it was an evil act and laid out the consequences, then the character has coming whatever you said would happen; so it goes.

If you didn't tell the player in advance but are only now considering the alignment effects of the action, then the player should be given a warning and nothing should happen to the character.

It's perfectly fine to make characters play by their alignment, but the player needs to be in control of that alignment. Since the GM's standards (correct or incorrect) will apply in the game, the GM owes the player advance warning and the chance to make informed choices about their character.


Viktyr Korimir wrote:

I'd have beaten her to death for being a Medusa, but I don't even pretend to be Good. Even if she isn't personally Evil, she kills people by looking at them; she kills people accidentally just because she exists. Therefore, she needs to stop existing.

That's Lawful Neutral. If she weren't a Medusa, dangerous by sole virtue of existence, I'd accept this as an Evil act.

I'm not sure any of my characters would have killed her. The whole begging for mercy is usually one of my weaknesses...

However, she IS a medusa. She kills with a LOOK... She was UNHOODED... AND they had just killed her child.

To just dismiss her with a wave of a hand seems insane. Even if she isn't there of her own free will does NOT mean she isn't evil. In fact after the attrocities that had just been done to her, it wouldn't be unexpected for her to take vengence on all humanity.

Unless it's well established in the campaign that medusas may or may not be evil spiteful creatures... I don't think it's evil for someone to kill this creature who can wipe out a whole party in a single round.

i had one character who brushed up against the evil line... PROBABLY took a few steps over to be honest... He was a 'monster hunter' (think supernatural) who had a special hatred for werewolves... Then he found a whole a werewolf village... Men, women, children...

One bard in town was able to keep them soothed, and they were able to 'cure' about 90% of them. The rest were uncureable...

My character ditched the group and went back later... killed the rest. They were controlled... but still a threat. The DM was pushing for the 'this is evil' concept...

How could I kill them when they hadn't actually DONE anything yet.... but his rebuttal was 'Don't think of them as 'people'. What if they were rabid dogs?' Would you leave them in a cage and hope they never get out? If anything happens... one slip of the bard... and these creatures are going to kill someone.

he couldn't allow that. He'd seen too much of what those creatures could do!!

after that adventure though... he spent a LOT of time getting drunk, and essentially retired from monster hunting. Still working on the story that brings him back into 'the game'...


mdt wrote:
That's more chaotic evil honestly. In a world where stone to flesh spells are fairly easy to find, she doesn't kill people, she can inconvenience someone by accident if she doesn't cover her eyes.

Stone to Flesh requires an 11th level Wizard at minimum and the victim has to make a DC 15 Fortitude save to survive. That means that, even if an 11th level Wizard can be found, the average person has less than a 50% chance to survive.

Even if that were not the case, if petrifying someone is merely an "inconvenience" because it can be undone, I might remind you that the Medusa can be raised from the dead by a 5th level spell and a 5,000 gp diamond.

Clearly, all the Monk did was slow her down a little bit.

Contributor

phantom1592 wrote:

One bard in town was able to keep them soothed, and they were able to 'cure' about 90% of them. The rest were uncureable...

My character ditched the group and went back later... killed the rest. They were controlled... but still a threat. The DM was pushing for the 'this is evil' concept...

I always find that plotline tiresome and pat. It's basically "These are mooks you get to kill with no moral qualms," which never works out anyway because inevitably the "incurable" evil ends up being curable with just a little effort and know-how.

It also treads way too close to historic (and present day) justifications for genocide for my personal comfort zone.


killing the medusa is a neutral act in my opinion, but it is close to evil, so "very" good characters shouldn't do it.

Cause: Medusas can easily kill by mistake.

However, I would welcome other solutions however:
A promise of exile would probably be granted a little treasure and perhaps a rumour between other intelligent monsters that wouldn't attack the group on sight.


Abraham spalding wrote:

I would go with evil -- but not alignment changing evil.

******
... the fact that the monk is doing this out of spite.
That is clearly not good to me, and well within evil -- he doesn't have law on his side, he doesn't have rational on his side, it's simply a chance to "get even" and "hurt her".

I second this entire post. It is a vengeance beating taken out against someone(thing) that has not intentionally hurt the monk. In our modern society, this monk would be convicted of aggrivated assault. If he is a wealthy white monk, then it would prolly just get dismissed as self defense.


I have to say....I find the action of the monk to be evil. I would have given him a strike to that effect immediately(unless the act is unquestionably evil...it never results in instant alignment change.)

The fact that he did not kill her on the 1st hit does not matter...as the intent is clear.

I mean in a game where a demon or a devil can change...anything can change alignment.


Maris_Thistledown wrote:
I second this entire post. It is a vengeance beating taken out against someone(thing) that has not intentionally hurt the monk. In our modern society, this monk would be convicted of aggrivated assault. If he is a wealthy white monk, then it would prolly just get dismissed as self defense.

That really depends on whether or not our laws considered medusae to be people. Considering the fact that they turn people to stone, I seriously doubt they would be; in our society, they'd have been extinct centuries ago because our ancestors would have posted a bounty for medusa heads.

Liberty's Edge

Leaving aside the issue of spite (which is probably more a player motivation than a character one), this action could be Neutral Good (if we let this evil creature live, even as a prisoner, it will only cause more harm in the future – for the greater good we must kill it),
Chaotic Good (mercy, screw that, if the tables were turned it wouldn’t show us any. Kill it so it can’t hurt anyone else – dead is better than imprisoned anyway),
Lawful Neutral (this thing has brought much pain and chaos into the world, and it deserves punishment – no law compels me to heed its cries for mercy),
True Neutral (nature does not show mercy and neither shall I. There is enough evil in the world that ending this one’s life will not disrupt the balance),
Chaotic Neutral (Meh, I could go either way, but I think I’ll kill it, otherwise it might kill me ... or something),
Lawful Evil (no law prevents me from killing it, and it does not suit me as a slave or minion),
Neutral Evil (there’s nothing in it for me in letting it live),
or Chaotic Evil (it’s begging for mercy? Oh, this is going to be fun ...).

It probably wasn’t a Lawful Good thing to do, but that wasn’t the question.


Were I playing the Monk I might have done the same thing (though not the coin flip on round two). After I would talk to the GM, this kind of thing is great for character development and I would take this opportunity to really get into the characters head. Maybe he later wants to go see a senior monk of his order to get advice or seek atonement by doing good acts?

If this happened in my game while i was playing my very lawful and very good wizard I would have told the monk to stop, if if carried on I would have physically stopped him. And thats before the ultra lawful and ultra good paladin gets to step in.

Silver Crusade

You know this whole scenario has just bothered me. Just laying this out there:

The party murdered a traumatized victim of rape. Right after she gave birth.

That should probably be made cold and clear to the players at some point.

The fact that it was a medusa is a sick irony. She never, ever catches a break.

Grand Lodge

Yeah, it kind of got to me too.


This is why all adventuring parties should be aptly evil aligned. They do stuff like this on a regular day to day basis.

Oh a group of mites here just having fun with a caltrop crossbow with each other. They ain't hurting anyone.. SLAUGHTER THEM ALL!

Oh a band of bugbears.. lets not say hi and find out how they feel.. SLAUGHTER THEM ALL!!

Zombies? KILL! Hags? KILL! Kobolds? KILL! Goblins? KILL!

Honestly, my evil characters are more merciful than a band of "righteous" party members.

You may only be a good character if you are a pacifist. Every evil character always has a sob story.. I watched case closed. I know about 500+ sob stories, as there is one every episode.

I've actually got a campaign Idea I've been brewing where alignments are flip flopped the "good guys" are brutal blood thirsty murders, while the evil necromancers are just trying to cure the ultimate disease.. death.

Grand Lodge

Ævux wrote:

This is why all adventuring parties should be aptly evil aligned. They do stuff like this on a regular day to day basis.

I take exception to that. My party has, on the whole, killed only those who attacked them first. In fact, they've done a lot more talking in my SCAP game due to the fact that not all of the encounters start with the enemy drawing swords and pulling a Leroy Jenkins.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yeah, it kind of got to me too.

Seemed like a troll's trap to me, so I just stayed out of the main debate and continued a peripheral discussion about Batman.

Ævux wrote:

Oh a band of bugbears.. lets not say hi and find out how they feel.. SLAUGHTER THEM ALL!!

Zombies? KILL! Hags? KILL! Kobolds? KILL! Goblins? KILL!

You can't kill zombies (they are already dead). You have to destroy them.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ævux wrote:

This is why all adventuring parties should be aptly evil aligned. They do stuff like this on a regular day to day basis.

I take exception to that. My party has, on the whole, killed only those who attacked them first. In fact, they've done a lot more talking in my SCAP game due to the fact that not all of the encounters start with the enemy drawing swords and pulling a Leroy Jenkins.

You killed them. Good aligned people would have found ways to stop them from attacking you while not killing them.

SCAP?

Silver Crusade

Ævux wrote:

This is why all adventuring parties should be aptly evil aligned. They do stuff like this on a regular day to day basis.

Adding to TOZ's repsonse, my party has defused hostile situations peacefully, gone to court to testify in a former enemy's defense, redeemed a goblin, fostered the growth of a Sarenraen goblin cult, prevented the extermination of a city's wererat population, put a lot of hard work into the redemption of a LE cleric of Zon-Kuthon, and run two successful sting operations with no fatalities through trickery and sheer balls.

Grand Lodge

Ævux wrote:


You killed them. Good aligned people would have found ways to stop them from attacking you while not killing them.

SCAP?

Shackled City Adventure Path.

And that's why my party is firmly Neutral. When they can take prisoners, they do. When it's a fiendish umber hulk demolishing the city, they kill it ASAP.

They did not instagib the dark stalker suffering from a vanishing curse, or the fire giant smith, both of whom demanded to know who the party was and what they wanted instead of autoattacking.

No, they are not the shining beacons of Good I might like to see, but they are not the blackest Evil either.

Silver Crusade

Ævux wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ævux wrote:

This is why all adventuring parties should be aptly evil aligned. They do stuff like this on a regular day to day basis.

I take exception to that. My party has, on the whole, killed only those who attacked them first. In fact, they've done a lot more talking in my SCAP game due to the fact that not all of the encounters start with the enemy drawing swords and pulling a Leroy Jenkins.

You killed them. Good aligned people would have found ways to stop them from attacking you while not killing them.

SCAP?

Good people would try when possible. Sometimes they get to take or make that third option. Sometimes a hostile coming at you with a axe can only be dealt with via lethal force.

Also, not all killing is murder. And killing a dude that is coming at you with an axe is a world apart from killing a traumatized rape victim who is begging for mercy.


Hostile coming at me with an axe.. If I was good aligned..
First I'd use a whip. Trip attack, disarm.. Then non-leathal damage.. perhaps a memory lapse or two.

And sure, when you put it that way, I can make anything you've killed sound evil.

That's not a hostile with an axe, that is a man desperately trying to protect his home. Bandits come in day in and day out attacking his house.. and you killed him. Congrats, shining beacons of goodness. Congrats. You killed the poor woodsman.

Werewolves? Well those are just people who are inflicted with a disease. Not their fault they are werewolves. That one you just killed was that sweet little old lady on the end of the road who's only goal in life was to make the ultimate dango. And you brutally killed her. Feel proud, you just left 2 children without a mother, and crushed another persons dreams to eat that ultimate dango.

And zombies? Well they are just the living impaired you see, they have rights too as they are still people. They also like smoothies and are willing to do filing. You just slaughtered the work force of the local tax service company. Now people cannot get their taxes turned in because the work is piling up for the non-living impaired individuals working at the tax service company. This has the effect of causing the entire country to crumble a part for that center was the largest tax service company that served well over a million people each year. Now only a meager 2500 people managed to pay their taxes. Women and children are now starving in the streets and all because you just mercilessly killed those zombies and the necromancer for that crazy guy who just wanted to avoid paying taxes. I sure hope you are proud of yourselves.


Abraham spalding wrote:

I would go with evil -- but not alignment changing evil.

IF this medusa really didn't attack them, and has simply curled up while begging for mercy that is.

IF the medusa has been fighting them, and stops then proceeds to beg for mercy like this, I'm still thinking evil... but at such a low end that I wouldn't drop someone's alignment for it.

******

Part of my thought on this is the fact that the monk is doing this out of spite. He's hitting her because he was hurt by her baby. It isn't a rationed out, "we can't take a chance" it's "Her baby hurt me, and I don't care I'm going to hurt her too."

That is clearly not good to me, and well within evil -- he doesn't have law on his side, he doesn't have rational on his side, it's simply a chance to "get even" and "hurt her".

I agree with you. From the sounds of this he's just beating the crap out of a defenceless woman who hasn't harmed him and has been harmed from being forced to bare a mutant child and burned horribly, now she bows down, begging for mercy and gets a angry monk beating the crap out of her.

If it were a Coup de Grace I'd be fine with it as it would end her suffering and put her into a better place, but as the poster said, he jus started pummelling her making this a slow and painful death.

Evil, but not so evil as to be an alignment change, unless he's done other questionable acts that would stack with this.

Silver Crusade

Ævux wrote:

Hostile coming at me with an axe.. If I was good aligned..

First I'd use a whip. Trip attack, disarm.. Then non-leathal damage.. perhaps a memory lapse or two.

And sure, when you put it that way, I can make anything you've killed sound evil.

That's not a hostile with an axe, that is a man desperately trying to protect his home. Bandits come in day in and day out attacking his house.. and you killed him. Congrats, shining beacons of goodness. Congrats. You killed the poor woodsman.

Werewolves? Well those are just people who are inflicted with a disease. Not their fault they are werewolves. That one you just killed was that sweet little old lady on the end of the road who's only goal in life was to make the ultimate dango. And you brutally killed her. Feel proud, you just left 2 children without a mother, and crushed another persons dreams to eat that ultimate dango.

And zombies? Well they are just the living impaired you see, they have rights too as they are still people. They also like smoothies and are willing to do filing. You just slaughtered the work force of the local tax service company. Now people cannot get their taxes turned in because the work is piling up for the non-living impaired individuals working at the tax service company. This has the effect of causing the entire country to crumble a part for that center was the largest tax service company that served well over a million people each year. Now only a meager 2500 people managed to pay their taxes. Women and children are now starving in the streets and all because you just mercilessly killed those zombies and the necromancer for that crazy guy who just wanted to avoid paying taxes. I sure hope you are proud of yourselves.

3/10

The medusa in question truly was a traumatized rape victim. Posting absurd assumptions doesn't negate that.

Also:

Never killed any woodsmen.

Cured werewolves when possible.

You're not even trying on the undead angle.

You can keep trying to play this game, but some of us actually do like playing good Good characters.


Mikaze wrote:
The party murdered a traumatized victim of rape. Right after she gave birth.

They killed a monster. What happened to her was horrible, but it doesn't make her any less of a monster. It doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person would have felt an obligation to put her down, and the party should be lauded for having done so.

overfiend_87 wrote:
I agree with you. From the sounds of this he's just beating the crap out of a defenceless woman who hasn't harmed him...

Except for having turned him to stone the first time, and still being fully capable of turning him to stone again. Not to mention the head full of poisonous snakes.

You people are making a real big deal out of what happened to her, but you're forgetting what she was.

Dark Archive

I´d say Lawful Neutral, but...

Lvl 12 Procrastinator wrote:

When his turn came around again, he announced that he was having second thoughts. He decided to leave his next action to a d6: 1-3, he continues the attack, 4-6 he lets her go. He rolled high and showed mercy. By then the medusa no longer trusted him anyway, though, and stumbled out a side door...

I was thinking... He decided his next action randomly? Random Mercy/Random Attack? A little bit chaotic...:D

Silver Crusade

Viktyr Korimir wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
The party murdered a traumatized victim of rape. Right after she gave birth.
They killed a monster. What happened to her was horrible, but it doesn't make her any less of a monster. It doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person would have felt an obligation to put her down, and the party should be lauded for having done so.

She was a free-willed sapient being. Tagging her as being okay to murder simply because she had the bad fortune to be born into the wrong race is nothing short of a monstrous double standard.

And you're damn right I'm making a big deal out of what was done to her. It is a big deal.

Viktyr Korimir wrote:
Except for having turned him to stone the first time, and still being fully capable of turning him to stone again. Not to mention the head full of poisonous snakes.

She wasn't even the one that did it. AND she was cowering and begging for mercy.

Viktyr Korimir wrote:
You people are making a real big deal out of what happened to her, but you're forgetting what she was.

Some of hate that double standard with a passion. Sorry.

This is just another reason why I can't @#$%ing stand the Always Chaotic Evil trope.

And this specific situation? With the murder-happy adventurers heroically butchering a being that has been raped? It actually makes me @#$%ing angry. To the point that I'm stepping away from the thread for a while.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Viktyr Korimir wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
The party murdered a traumatized victim of rape. Right after she gave birth.

They killed a monster. What happened to her was horrible, but it doesn't make her any less of a monster. It doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person would have felt an obligation to put her down, and the party should be lauded for having done so.

overfiend_87 wrote:
I agree with you. From the sounds of this he's just beating the crap out of a defenceless woman who hasn't harmed him...

Except for having turned him to stone the first time, and still being fully capable of turning him to stone again. Not to mention the head full of poisonous snakes.

You people are making a real big deal out of what happened to her, but you're forgetting what she was.

Specist! :P

Grand Lodge

Viktyr Korimir wrote:


They killed a monster. What happened to her was horrible, but it doesn't make her any less of a monster. It doesn't change the fact that any reasonable person would have felt an obligation to put her down, and the party should be lauded for having done so.

Except for having turned him to stone the first time, and still being fully capable of turning him to stone again. Not to mention the head full of poisonous snakes.

You people are making a real big deal out of what happened to her, but you're forgetting what she was.

TASTELESS JOKE:
...a Jew?

I can't help weighing in on alignment arguments. I think I agree with Abraham's first comment about 'if he did it out of spite rather than for a justifiable reason then it's a bit evil'.

But, just to echo Azaneal, any monk who used a die roll to determine their action should be bounced straight into CN.

I think accepting surrender is an interesting dilemma (and much has been written regarding this in the real world of course) - generally I think that a good character's starting point should be to accept a surrender on ethical grounds, a neutral character would probably be thinking 'well, as long as it's practical' and an evil character 'oooh, slaves!' In hot blood (e.g. big bad is driven down to below ten hits and then surrenders) I think most characters could be forgiven finishing him off although I'd want to hear some justification from a good character.

(Heh...in Ha#&*aster there's a character class (the Knight Errant, a paladin parody) who have a very long list of viable excuses for not accepting a surrender (including ("There is a missile weapon within ten feet of them (including one owned by the Knight Errant)." - and even if none of these conditions can be met, the KE is entitled to one final blow 'because they had started and couldn't pull it back in time' (including if they have to load and fire a crossbow) - anyone recognise this from when they were thirteen?)

51 to 100 of 532 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Refusal to Show Mercy... Evil? All Messageboards