Refusal to Show Mercy... Evil?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 532 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.

Whether or not something is a "monster" depends on how the DM paints his world. In FR goblins were annoying little bastards who could be killed and nobody would care. In Eberron they were actually members of society, and the goblinoid races even had a great empire. The monsters there are not restricted by alignment.

In any event the only things born/created a certain way without choice are alignment based outsiders because they are actually composed of the alignment. Anything else may have strong powers, and members of its race/species may have done bad things, but that does not mean that all of them are bad.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Pretty much the two points that determine a persons answer to this thread are:

1: Is murdering Evil an Evil act?

2: Is the medusa Evil?

There is a lot of variance between different posters on this.

Obviously, I believe murdering Evil is Evil, as long as you define murder as Evil.

As for the medusa, I don't believe in Always Chaotic Evil, so I say no to that as well.


Mikaze wrote:
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.

Justified, perhaps, but this is an internet argument and getting angry won't help. Then again, KittyAvatarTroll didn't help either.

Frankly, yeah, I'd rule this as an evil act. Probably chaotic too (the die roll to determine actions is just wat, and a metagame problem, not in-game). Though, people make mistakes in anger all the time. Maybe he could track her down and try to find some forgiveness, as a personal sidequest. It could make for good story, assuming he/his character feels it is worth exploring. If he does, the GM might consider allowing her to accept, even if begrudgingly or after a few rounds of being hit while he tries to apologize. Hell, if you set up a future campaign in this same world, maybe news got around about the trustworthiness of the monk's race...for good or ill.

As for KittyAvatarTroll. Um, I know I'm not supposed to feed the trolls, but if you're serious then JEEZ you're messed up. By that DoubleThink you could justify Dr. Evil's plans to drop a meteor on a city or cover the world in liquid-hot magma. Even though we never learn his motivations. You could justify Satan in the canonical Bible with that.

Do you even understand what's wrong with your own logic? I laughed at the zombie part because it was so many, many flavors of convoluted. Yes, zombie working slaves, sounds like a hit B-Movie. Oh no, we've got an illegal immigrant problem; zombies from the Negative Energy Plane are stealing what's left of our jobs that aren't going to Xa Hoi.


Oh, yeah, and on the subject of 'monsters have feelings too', read the Goblins comic strip - I think particularly Mikaze would find it struck a chord with her style of play (the Yuan-Ti in particular).

http://www.goblinscomic.com/06252005/

The whole 'it's ok to kill monsters' trope depends largely on the style of game you play and isn't really an alignment issue. Some games are basically wargames (and many of the Paizo campaigns are total combat-fests) where the point is to put the bad guys down as quickly and as permanently as possible. Others have a strong moral theme to them with dilemmas regularly tossed to the players to try to solve and defeating the bad guys isn't the problem, it's what to do with them next. I prefer a mix personally, and I hate it when a character just 'solves' such a dilemma with a sword, but also, if it's a 'clear' combat encounter a long conversation about it can irritate me when I want to get on with rolling the dice.

A recent example in 'Seven Days to the Grave'

Spoiler:
The players investigated Vendra Loaggri and caught up with her as she was trying to empty her safe to flee the city. The party tank got an accidental critical and knocked her from 'fit and well' to 'dying' in a single blow. Vendra's guards surrendered. The party cleric healed Vendra so they could decide what to do with her, and she promised them everything to just let her leave town. As goodly sorts with no faith in the Queen's justice and aware that Vendra might face death by torture, the players found it difficult to decide what to do. In the end, they avoided personal responsibiltiy by turning her and her guards over to the Church (who had asked them to investigate in the first place). I *think* I'd call this a lawful good response given Vendra had knowingly put dozens at risk of the plague with her fake cure. (The guards were put to work in the hospitals where they run a daily risk of catching the plague but can 'earn' their freedom, Vendra was turned over to the watch and I haven't decided what her fate is yet).


Machaeus wrote:

As for KittyAvatarTroll. Um, I know I'm not supposed to feed the trolls, but if you're serious then JEEZ you're messed up. By that DoubleThink you could justify Dr. Evil's plans to drop a meteor on a city or cover the world in liquid-hot magma. Even though we never learn his motivations. You could justify Satan in the canonical Bible with that.

Do you even understand what's wrong with your own logic? I laughed at the zombie part because it was so many, many flavors of convoluted. Yes, zombie working slaves, sounds like a hit B-Movie. Oh no, we've got an illegal immigrant problem; zombies from the Negative Energy Plane are stealing what's left of our jobs that aren't going to Xa Hoi.

Actually I think you have the wrong idea.

Some of it was me stretching out the whole "The party murdered a traumatized victim of rape" argument logic to its fullest extremes by attempting to apply it to lots of other things.

Like I said, there is an anime called Case Closed, where every, and I mean every badguy has a sob story on why the person they killed deserved to die. That anime is over 500 episodes by now I think and still going. Voltier has a song called crusade, where the 'agent of good' goes to slay the evil dragon, who in the end was just trying to protect his young.

Course my First DM used to do a comic about a band of badguys who would meet up occasionally with the heroes and they would fight. It was a party of goblins, orcs, and I think even a gnoll cleric.

My characters alignment is almost always evil or neutral. Currently in our campaign, I'm actually the one making an effort to make sure that the party doesn't slay everyone just because they (the victims) are brigands and thieves. So far, I've managed to get them to not kill the kobolds and instead got them to invoke trade negotiations with them.

Oh and FYI alt+0198 gives you Ævux

I do have a couple of questions. Where in there did it actually say she was a slave and not just an SMB kinda girl? Or that she was traumatized? I noticed it did say we had some sort of demon unicorn there..

And is it not normal for evil to beg for mercy and immediately turn on you when you give it?


I would go with "non-good" but also "non-evil", why?

Killing a creature who's begging for mercy is clearly a non-good act
BUT
A Medusa is a Evil Creature, a creature which is from her heart evil, so killing her in the name of good, can never be an evil act.

Medusas are known manipulators, so who says here beg for mercy, wasn't only a distraction to gather new strength and strike with all here force?

The problem here is that we too often judge by our own viewings and philosophy, but we should judge (in Pathfinder), judge from the point of view of the character and the world they live in.

In this case, spare the live of an evil creature is something no good folk in this world would do (except if he sees true remorse and not only mercy because it's weak at this moment).


James Jacobs wrote:

One other thing:

GMs who present an evil foe and use that foe to anger the players and hurt them and cause them to go on adventures and all that, only to have that foe fall to their knees and beg for mercy is kinda cheesy.

You (meaning Paizo) are doing that occasionally.

Best example: Jolistina the madcap forlorn. She killed a lot of people, zombified them and let them dance for her. When the heroes confront her, she is to play cant and mouse with them, taunting them, laughing at them, showing off her creations. And then, when she's hurt enough, she surrenders (though she intends to escape).

When I unleashed her on my party, the paladin came quite close to needing atonement. She statistically killed him a few times (i.e. did enough damage to him to kill him had the cleric not kept him on his feet), ran away from him, hid, turned invisible, only to sneak attack with spells to hit him where it hurt.

And then, when they had her, she fell laughing on her knees and surrendered (the laughing part is, admittedly, my input, but her being stark raving mad and masochistic, I thought it fit her well).

She never stopped being cheerful, and the character had to leave the room or he would have killed her. The player almost had to leave the room.

Actually, I don't call it cheesy. Well, maybe a bit. But as long as you don't overdo this sort of thing, I think it can add to the game.

I considered it a good test of the Paladin's commitment to his code - something that was anything but easy to decide on (the player himself was quite enraged, too!), but not one of those truly cheesy situations like "the villain tells you to kill the king you're protecting or he torches the orphans he has chained to the floor and is threatening with his staff of fire".

James Jacobs wrote:


But it's an alignment trap. GMs who get the PCs worked up to attack a foe and then punish the PCs for following through and killing that foe by forcing alignment changes is an obnoxious kind of bait and switch.

If you do it often enough, it gets tired, but I think that it should not be too easy to stick to the famed straight and narrow path.

In such a case, I wouldn't make their alignment change instantly, anyway. Paladins would probably need to atone for their deeds in some manner, reflect on what they'd done and make amends, and clerics might face the same, but I wouldn't say "you're evil now". That really is cheesy.

I'd make an exception in the case of a character who isn't defined overmuch by his alignment and has nothing at stake if the alignment is changed. In that case, I usually ask the player if he wants to adjust the alignment, especially if it's early in the campaign and the character hasn't been around for long.

James Jacobs wrote:


AKA: If you set up an NPC as a villain and the PCs grow to hate that NPC, it's not fair to have that NPC turn out to be a misunderstood victim.

That is, of course, a different situation. Surrendering doesn't have to mean that the guy is a victim. He can be evil but attempt to hide behind the law and their goodness, surrendering to survive (hopefully to escape or wriggle out of any punishment the government would deal).

James Jacobs wrote:
If you want an NPC to be a misunderstood bad guy, you need to support that decision by foreshadowing so that the players suspect that's the situation going in.

On that I agree as well.

It's hard to have a villain that really enrages the characters (and players) only to have him turn out to be one of those victims of circumstance.

One one side, you have the guys who aren't really evil villains but only play the part, being misunderstood and so on, characters who will oppose the players and have plans they need to stop, but those guys rarely get the kind of personal that will make people so angry they throw their commitment to good to the wind and waste'm.

On the other side, you have characters like Carcer. Carcer is from the Discworld Novel Nightwatch. Mad, evil, sadistic, always trying to wriggle out of things. He can stab someone to death right before your eyes, only to hide the knife behind his back, look to you with puppy eyes and ask you "Wrong? I have done wrong? What did I do wrong? He also surrenders a couple of times in the book, that usual film villain kind of surrender with the hidden weapon.

But nobody would even start to think that he could be misunderstood.

Lvl 12 Procrastinator wrote:


In the real situation, he failed to kill her that round, and I asked him how killing her would fit with his professed love of the law.

A quick question: Is he just a lawful monk (as they all are) or does he really love the law?

Lawful doesn't necessarily mean belief in law, despite the fact that there's law in its name. Especially in Pathfinder, it can just mean having a very strict discipline or codex you never deviate from. Especially for monks, that's a better definition than "obeys laws". It's more about order than law.

Lvl 12 Procrastinator wrote:
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.

How did the monk decide? What the player does is only partially relevant. How the monk, the character himself, inside of the game world, decided to be merciful is the question here.

Anyway, in the situation as it is presented here, I would say attacking her before she even made a move to do anything to her is definitely not a good act, and may be evil. She's a medusa, sure, but they're not all evil. Just assuming that she is is an act of prejudice, which is considered evil (probably lawful evil). "Monster" or not.

I agree that in the heat of battle, you can't always stop to determine of the creature in front of you is really evil or just attacks you out of a misunderstanding, but it doesn't sound like the medusa made any move against them.


Tryn wrote:


A Medusa is a Evil Creature, a creature which is from her heart evil, so killing her in the name of good, can never be an evil act.

Show me where it says that.

If the GM agrees with this, than that's OK, but don't assume he plays it all in stark black and white and kill everything that isn't of the 7 character races. The GM might have a less simple approach to racial alignment, and in this case, just assuming they're all evil and killing them can be an evil act.


Murder of convenience is ALWAYS evil when I am behind the screen. If there is no justice to be had, you cannot claim that killing someone is a good, or even neutral act.

An irredeemably evil creature begging for mercy after doing several heinous act for which any LG court would have it pay the ultimate price (murdering of innocents, multiple acts with the evil descriptor, like animating dead and stealing souls, etc) can be slain by a paladin in my eyes, but it must be a clean death.

I generally go by the Detect Evil scale for what a good character should do;

Faint evil: If you claim to be good, you should show mercy and at least TRY to redeem and correct.

Moderate evil: Consider redemption, but weigh the potential damage if failed. Case by case.

Strong evil: Likely this is a horribly evil creature, and be mostly irredeemable. Give it a clean death.

Overwhelming evil: Smite on sight. This category is the manifest scourge of the lands, terrors from beyond and the irredeemable right hand men and women of evil gods, successful in spreading horror for over 10 levels. No mercy need be considered.

Of course, this is hardly an universally true scale. A mass child-murdering NPC can detect as faint evil merely because he is low-level. He should still be put away for his foul deeds. A high level NPC money lender with dubious scruples and no lives directly on his conscience however, should not be put top the blade merely for being a bit of a bastard.

Also, the adherence to the table should also reflect your adherence to the detect good table. I have MUCH higher expectations of a character with a strong or overwhelming good aura (clerics and paladins) than I do of a faintly good fighter.

As for what constitutes good acts, I tend to look at what the GOOD gods govern, and how they prefer to deal with problems. Cutting enemies down in the name of justice is Iomedae's LG domain. Cutting down enemies in the name of honor is Gorum's CN domain. Cutting down enemies for the lulz or to ensure own benefit (murder of convenience) is in the NE and CE domains of Rovagug and Norgorber.

Lastly: The labeling of evil and not on NPCs and monsters seems rather inconsistent and odd at times, which makes it impossible IMO to really go by any rule of thumb that "killing evil is OK". Take the Wyvern, an intelligent monster that mostly attacks on sight and shows little to no sympathy for sentient life; neutral. Most adventurers kill these buggers on sight, and I have no qualms about that.

Kingmaker - Blood for Blood:
Baron Hannis Drelev, who is a bit of a prick when dueling his men and has a superiority complex, but tries to reach diplomatic and mutually beneficial terms with people who threaten his realm, and caves under the pressure of a greater nation, and opts to save his land by carrying out orders given under duress; evil.
Suffice to say, the CG cleric of Sarenrae in my Kingmaker campaign fought tooth and nail to keep him alive and redeem him (successfully over a long period of solo RP).

Serpent Skull - Race to Ruin:
Assassins sent to kill the PCs in the comfort of the home of an ally; neutral.
As a paladin, I could not cut them down fast enough, and it left a bitter taste in my mouth to spare them after murdering the party cleric just because they did not detect as evil, and "only did what they were paid to do." Yeah? Getting paid to kill is EEEEEEEEVIIL... *pinky to the lip*

Grand Lodge

@Kaeyoss: I've actually ran into a villain that was both hideously evil and a victim of circumstance. This villain is called Stigmata, admittedly it's a superhero game, because if it wasn't there isn't a character I could build that could take this guy.

He's a full-conversion cyborg, a brain in a jar hidden somewhere in a robot body, he's gone mad from something called cyber-psychosis (it's the same reason every Robocop after the first one failed), and he is an irredeemable monster. I am morally obligated to kill him, because if I don't he will kill and kill again. Even if I destroy his body, someone down the line is going to break him out and put him to work again.

Dark Archive

[sermon on the molehill]
My problem with the unforgivably irredeemably evil concept is that every single thing we do or say or think about someone else, reflects what we do and say and think about ourselves.

If I believe that someone else who has done something wrong can never be forgiven for that, then that means that there is something broken or clogged up inside of me, that if *I* ever make a mistake or say something hurtful or do something cruel, that I can just kiss ever thinking of myself as a good person, or capable of making up for it, or even capable of choosing to not do that again, goodbye, and use that as an excuse to continue doing or saying hurtful things, since, 'obviously,' the fact that I've done something bad once makes me bad forever, and I don't need to bother trying to be better than bad, since there is no forgiveness or redemption possible.

This sort of 'one bad action = permanantly bad person' mentality both justifies individual moral laziness (oh, I drank too much again, I guess I'm just an alcoholic with no self-control *EVER*, so I might as well not even try!) and also justifies a bleak empty-hearted callousness towards the rest of humanity, since *everybody* makes a mistake at some point in their lives, and says or does or thinks something beyond the pale, and is thus totally undeserving of a second chance or the possibility of redemption.

One surefire way to perpetuate evil and injustice is to set oneself up as the judge of who are 'good people' and who are 'bad people.'

Without the ability to recognize the potential for goodness in others (even those we don't like very much, or who have done us wrong), we are incapable of perceiving or encouraging the potential for goodness within ourselves.

And, ultimately, forgiveness (like love, or trust), isn't something that can be earned by ticking deeds off a checklist, or 'deserved,' or is owed to anyone. It must be given, and is given not for the benefit of the recipient, but because it cleanses the heart of the giver, and drains away the corrosive toxic weight of being angry or feeling hurt or betrayed.
[/sermon on the molehill]

As for the killing the medusa rape-victim for the crime of being a medusa, yikes. I don't like the storyline, and wouldn't use it. It feels 'trappy.' But if the situation came up, the monk's actions were neither good nor lawful. Since he wasn't good, that's a wash.

But unless he goes to Cobra-Kai dojo, using your thousand-year old spiritually powerful sacred kung-fu to smack someone around because he's frustrated is probably not gonna earn him that next belt.

Pat Morita is gonna have to set that boy straight in the parking lot.


Set wrote:
Pat Morita is gonna have to set that boy straight in the parking lot.

LOL that's too good. The monk's player is gonna love that when I tell him.

KaeYoss wrote:
...but don't assume he plays it all in stark black and white and kill everything that isn't of the 7 character races. The GM might have a less simple approach to racial alignment, and in this case, just assuming they're all evil and killing them can be an evil act.

This. I've never liked racial alignments, and I like to think that I've been sufficiently clear with the players about this.

They know I enjoy shades of gray scenarios where there are few clear-cut right or wrong answers. It seems this is one of the things they enjoy about my campaign. Since I am self-aware that this is my approach, though, I have to be careful not to judge the players' actions too severely based on my own opinions about alignment definitions, morality, etc. (I guess it's shame on me for dropping a Forbiddance into the game, which came back to bite me and required me to pass judgment). No characters were killed in the filming of this encounter, so it was all in good fun.

The game does have rules where alignment has very real consequences, so I do keep an eye on character behaviors. I subscribe to the idea that it takes a pattern of behaviors to change alignment, not just one action, with a few exceptions (cold-blooded murder by a paladin, for example).

EDIT: I'm also a big fan of natural consequences, positive and negative. Not so much punishment or reward, but I try to figure out what the logical consequences of their actions are. I like to think of "butterfly effect" kinds of consequences. Who was waiting for the medusa on the outside? Who wanted her dead? Was she even known? (see spoiler below) Sometimes evil actions can have good consequences, and vice-versa. I don't try to "trick" the players, I just like to surprise them and give them the feeling that they are affecting the world they're in, no matter their actions.

Spoiler:
They put her head in a sack, and put the sack in a Bag of Holding. Unbeknownst to them, another NPC far away also has a Bag of Holding which opens to the same non-dimensional space as their own. I had planned for him to take some of their stuff (and they could take some of his), and was looking forward to some interesting notes passed back and forth in negotiation, etc. But no...he's in for a nasty shock. Now maybe one day they find a statue of a guy with a Bag of Holding!


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.

the whole highlighting of monster makes this senario sounds like one from Dr Frankenstein and about his monster. Where as with Frankenstein's monsters it was a unintelligent construct, this was a intelligent creature who was indeed begging for mercy and as Viktyr missed, the guy said it was her child that she was forced to bear which petrified the monk.

Now I'm not saying it was a incredibly evil act, it was slightly evil since the creature was surrendering and had nothing to do with the combat, but I'm not taking into account her background. It's still evil to kill someone who is surrendering, but not enterily unpresidented as she may decide to turn on them being a inheritantly evil creature, but also it might decide to attack innocent civilians at a later date so evil...yes, but not alignment changing evil. Like I said before, would only change alignment if he has done many other morally questionable things.


overfiend_87 wrote:


the whole highlighting of monster makes this senario sounds like one from Dr Frankenstein and about his monster. Where as with Frankenstein's monsters it was a unintelligent construct, this was a intelligent creature who was indeed begging for mercy and as Viktyr missed, the guy said it was her child that she was forced to bear which petrified the monk.

Now I'm not saying it was a incredibly evil act, it was slightly evil since the creature was surrendering and had nothing to do with the combat, but I'm not taking into account her background. It's still evil to kill someone who is surrendering, but not enterily unpresidented as she may decide to turn on them being a inheritantly evil creature, but also it might decide to attack innocent civilians at a later date so evil...yes, but not alignment changing evil. Like I said before, would only change alignment if he has done many other morally questionable things.

If you check up above, the OP has clarified that he's gone to great pains in his game to show the players that no race is blanket evil, and that good vs evil is shades of gray, not black and white.

Given that, even the argument 'She was a monster' is invalid. She was a Medusa. Dangerous yes, but so is a Minotaur, or a human barbarian.

Frankly, Viktyr's posts remind me almost exactly of the 'Anti Mutant League' diatribes in Marvel comics. Mutants is dangerous, must kill all mutants because mutants could hurt us. THey are not human, they are monsters.


Well, I for one would enjoy playing in lvl 12's game. I love shades of grey games, but I wonder if his players do? It certainly takes a certain level of maturity that, within the context of a game, it is difficult for some people to invest in (as I think Viktyr 's posts highlight).

I think you have to be REALLY confident in your group's ability to empathize in the abstract before you let sexual violence (or even implied sexual violence) in your game. Otherwise, you end up with some queasy results.


Even given the description of the situation, I don't think killing the Medusa is evil if Medusa's in your world are the Medusa's in the bestiary. Here is a few sentences from the bestiary.

Medusa use lies and disguises that conceal their faces to get close enough to opponents to use their petrifying gaze, though they like playing with their prey and may fire arrows from a distance to lead enemies into traps. Some enjoy creating intricate decorations out of their victims, using their petrified remains as accents to their swampy lairs, but most Medusa take care to hide the evidence of their previous conflicts so that new foes won't have advance warning of their presence.

I am sorry, if you are a good character, that is a creature that needs to be put down. Cleanly and as mercifully as possible, but if you let it go, it will live as its nature dictates and good people may and probably will die because of it.

Now if you run a world where monsters often run counter to their nature as described in the Bestiary, can and often are redeemed and you had given the party reason to believe that if they spared the Medusa she could somehow become a non-evil creature that would not delight in stoning innocent travelers, then its a different story.


mdt wrote:


Frankly, Viktyr's posts remind me almost exactly of the 'Anti Mutant League' diatribes in Marvel comics. Mutants is dangerous, must kill all mutants because mutants could hurt us. THey are not human, they are monsters.

Yeah I agree, sounds a lot more like that than my origonal comparison.


A couple of notes about alignment of monsters.

1) In Pathfinder there is no 'always'...sometimes' etc. It just reprsents the norm of the race....and even goes on to say this can be very fluid.

So the medusa is not 'always' evil.

2) Even in 3.5(and I am pretty sure in 3rd ed) 'always' did not mean 100%. And it is possible to redeem such creatures.

So saying this is not a evil act....because she was evil. Does not exactly ring true. I don't know about you guys but when the 'good' guys start acting like the 'evil' guys I think they stop being the 'good' guys.


Here are my thoughts on the matter:

1) Just because a creature is evil does not mean it gives good creatures license to kill them with impunity. The point of being good is valuing life and other's rights, not just a 'subset'. Good is also about trying to redeem others. Evil about easy answers and giving into what you want, others be damned. The scene you described was an "evil" act.

2) One "evil" act does mean a character should automatically shift to "evil". While the monk murdering a prisoner of war is an evil act, there are alot of additional things going on. I personally would have noted that it was an "evil" act in my mental tally. By it's self it was not enough to cause an alignment shift, but if the character had a history of slaughtering beings and other evil acts, THEN this would have been that act that did it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The matter I am really interested of which all has not been already said ( and I stand firmly on the side of what Mikazes opinion of the topic is ) is about the actual character who killed the Medusa: The Fighter.

What was his motivation to do so? Was he aware of what had just happened, did he see that the Medusa was clearly a victim of abuse? What was his alignment? Did he show any regret afterwards?

Oh, yeah, and what happened to the baby? We still got no answer to that, IIRC.

The Monk is less of a concern, because he pulled back from beating the Medusa to death ( although the player leaving it up to a coin toss makes it look like a "I just felt like it" chaotic decision ). But the actual murderer of that Medusa has not been really mentioned and discussed about in this thread so far and if there is someone who should get a clear alignment hit towards evil, it appears to be him.


Mmm, I just love the "But they are dangerous, and must be put down because they can cause havoc and damage" argument.

Can you tell me ONE thing in the bestiary more frightening than a group of adventurers? A well oiled machine of death, capable of dealing with ANYTHING, and by the double digit levels can effectively take out rulers left and right?

After the party in my game teleported into the bedroom of a lawful baron of a sovereign nation and took him prisoner, the PCs have been condemned, branded outlaws, traitors and have prices on their heads by said nation. They were branded too dangerous to be ignored, and it was not hard to convince the ruling nobles to sign a document calling for the destruction of someone who took down one of their own without a fighting chance.


Alignment is not what a creature is.

Alignment is what and how a creature treats other.

................................

The question is not what alignment the Medusa was.

The question is how does the monk treat other, and how does this keep in line with his Lawful requirement. This should be taken as a whole, and not just on this one encounter.

For the most part, when you look at the history of how the player played his character... Do you think it follows his alignment as a whole.

======================================================================

How he teated the Medusa, after being turned to stone, does not bother me much, from the way you described it. (player did not pick up on the Medusa as a slave).

The whole role the dice, to decide his next action part, bother me more. As relying on chance and luck sounds more chaotic to me, that just picking an action and following throw with it (for better or worse), as lawful.


A lot of this boils down to what type of game and campaign world you are running. The OP says he has a world in which racial alignments are highly mutable and evil can never be assumed. Further, he likes to present his players with morally gray or ambiguous situations and says his players like that. Within that context, you could call the player's actions evil, although not to the level of instant alignment change. If it were part of a consistent pattern of similar behavior, certainly. Actually, I was more appalled by the idea of a LN monk rolling dice to determine what his action would be - virtually the definition of chaos.

Personally, I kind of like my fantasy world to be a little more balck and white than the real world. I deal with shades of gray all day long in my real job. When I'm gaming I want to put on my suit of shiny armor, strap on my sword and go forth to kick evil butt in a way that real life doesn't allow very often, if at all. I'd rather not have ambiguous moral dilemmas, and I despise GMs that force characters into situations when they have to make morally questionable choices. Realistic it may be, but fun for me it is not. For example, I want there to be a way that, in every situation, a paladin can do the right thing without making the mission fail. Like Capt. Kirk, I do not believe in no-win situations.

In a more black and white world, evil creatures would be EVIL, and you wouldn't have helpless, victim medusas begging for mercy. Instead, they would be threatening all that is good and right in the world, snarling definance at the heroes and generally making it obvious that they can and should be carved into little snaky bits without losing a minute's sleep over it. So the whole situation would be avoided.

Different strokes.


Oliver McShade wrote:

Alignment is what and how a creature treats other.

The whole role the dice, to decide his next action part, bother me more. As relying on chance and luck sounds more chaotic to me, that just picking an action and following throw with it (for better or worse), as lawful.

"I'm gonna flip a coin. You win, you get to live, you lose, you die."

- Two-face

Yep, definitely a chaotic act. Leaving important things up to chance is a no-no for a monk. Their entire existence is challenging their boundaries through iron discipline and unwavering focus. A coin toss is about the least monk-like I can imagine.


magnuskn wrote:

The matter I am really interested of which all has not been already said ( and I stand firmly on the side of what Mikazes opinion of the topic is ) is about the actual character who killed the Medusa: The Fighter.

What was his motivation to do so? Was he aware of what had just happened, did he see that the Medusa was clearly a victim of abuse? What was his alignment? Did he show any regret afterwards?

Oh, yeah, and what happened to the baby? We still got no answer to that, IIRC.

The Monk is less of a concern, because he pulled back from beating the Medusa to death ( although the player leaving it up to a coin toss makes it look like a "I just felt like it" chaotic decision ). But the actual murderer of that Medusa has not been really mentioned and discussed about in this thread so far and if there is someone who should get a clear alignment hit towards evil, it appears to be him.

At that point I think the fighter was acting in self-defense. The medusa due to the monks action did not think surrendered was a option...and probably was using her gaze attack.

Though that is just my take on what little we know.

I still say the monk should get a evil mark against him for throwing that punch as intent was clear...and the motivation was. Just because if he failed in doing so...does not make a act non-evil...

As to the whole 'letting the dice decide' the action of my character...I have always hated it....always will. I would give negative exp if I could get away with it. It is the only case where I would give negative exp. It is not chaotic...it is just well 'roll'-playing at it's 'finest'.

This of course excludes Chaotic character who do it in game for whatever reason...


Brian Bachman wrote:

A lot of this boils down to what type of game and campaign world you are running. The OP says he has a world in which racial alignments are highly mutable and evil can never be assumed. Further, he likes to present his players with morally gray or ambiguous situations and says his players like that. Within that context, you could call the player's actions evil, although not to the level of instant alignment change. If it were part of a consistent pattern of similar behavior, certainly. Actually, I was more appalled by the idea of a LN monk rolling dice to determine what his action would be - virtually the definition of chaos.

Personally, I kind of like my fantasy world to be a little more balck and white than the real world. I deal with shades of gray all day long in my real job. When I'm gaming I want to put on my suit of shiny armor, strap on my sword and go forth to kick evil butt in a way that real life doesn't allow very often, if at all. I'd rather not have ambiguous moral dilemmas, and I despise GMs that force characters into situations when they have to make morally questionable choices. Realistic it may be, but fun for me it is not. For example, I want there to be a way that, in every situation, a paladin can do the right thing without making the mission fail. Like Capt. Kirk, I do not believe in no-win situations.

In a more black and white world, evil creatures would be EVIL, and you wouldn't have helpless, victim medusas begging for mercy. Instead, they would be threatening all that is good and right in the world, snarling definance at the heroes and generally making it obvious that they can and should be carved into little snaky bits without losing a minute's sleep over it. So the whole situation would be avoided.

Different strokes.

+1 and this is what I am saying, it depends on the campaign, in my world, Medusa's are monsters not people, if I intended the Medusa to be a person I would give ample evidence to the party of that effect and just surrendering does not cut it as evidence that it is a civilized peaceful creature and not a monster, any intelligent evil creature will tell lies to save its hide, Medusa are noted for lying. So if it surrenders, what do you do with it now, just let it go with a promise to be good? And if it promises and goes off and stones some innocent travelers and decorates its lair with them and you find out about it are you going to let the next one go? Yes I understand creatures can go against type and turn good, but what about the 95% of them that don't? If you let 5 creatures go that are redeemed, is that worth the 95 you let go that commit more evil? In the end, I prefer my fantasy to be a bit more black and white, its an escape from real life to RP, not a simulation of real life.


Kamelguru wrote:
Oliver McShade wrote:

Alignment is what and how a creature treats other.

The whole role the dice, to decide his next action part, bother me more. As relying on chance and luck sounds more chaotic to me, that just picking an action and following throw with it (for better or worse), as lawful.

"I'm gonna flip a coin. You win, you get to live, you lose, you die."

- Two-face

Yep, definitely a chaotic act. Leaving important things up to chance is a no-no for a monk. Their entire existence is challenging their boundaries through iron discipline and unwavering focus. A coin toss is about the least monk-like I can imagine.

Cept it was a player who was rolling the die not the monk. Just because a player is playing a monk doesn't mean they are a monk..


magnuskn wrote:

The matter I am really interested of which all has not been already said ( and I stand firmly on the side of what Mikazes opinion of the topic is ) is about the actual character who killed the Medusa: The Fighter.

What was his motivation to do so? Was he aware of what had just happened, did he see that the Medusa was clearly a victim of abuse? What was his alignment? Did he show any regret afterwards?

Oh, yeah, and what happened to the baby? We still got no answer to that, IIRC.

The Monk is less of a concern, because he pulled back from beating the Medusa to death ( although the player leaving it up to a coin toss makes it look like a "I just felt like it" chaotic decision ). But the actual murderer of that Medusa has not been really mentioned and discussed about in this thread so far and if there is someone who should get a clear alignment hit towards evil, it appears to be him.

Great points. Answers:

The fighter was dimly aware of what was going on. When I say that, I mean the fighter, not the player controlling the fighter, of course. But the party was separated by a thin wall, part of which caved in when Orox smashed through it. Long story short, when Medusa was running away from the Monk toward the fighter, all he knew from free action shouts was that the medusa was heading his way. The fighter's alignment, by the way, is true neutral.

The baby was roasted by a flaming sphere spell amid all kinds of chaos fairly early in the encounter: orox charging around, Medusa trying to hide, and 20 morlocks swarming all over the adventurers.


If I were playing the monk, personally, I would arrange a reincarnation spell for her, and then apologize for my actions. I would probably do the same for her baby, if she wanted it.

This would give her the opportunity to live without being hunted down as a monster (given the right rolls) and also the same for her offspring, if she wanted it.

If she hated not being a medusa, she could always work towards a wish spell to restore her race.

EDIT : If I were the PC who cast the flaming sphere, I'd reincarnate the baby and put it in a good home (If neutral) or raise it myself (if good).


Was what the monk did evil? Unquestionably. I do not subscribe to the idea that killing something evil is automatically not evil or even good by definition. The circumstances matter and even creatures that are usually evil can be victims of horrible events and worthy of pity. Trying to murder such a victim in a fit of pique? Not exactly helping matters.

Should it change his alignment? Not unless he exhibits a pattern of engaging in evil behavior. But if he had been a paladin - whoo boy - welcome to ex-paladin city, population you. So it's a good thing he's a monk.


Bill Dunn wrote:

Was what the monk did evil? Unquestionably. I do not subscribe to the idea that killing something evil is automatically not evil or even good by definition. The circumstances matter and even creatures that are usually evil can be victims of horrible events and worthy of pity. Trying to murder such a victim in a fit of pique? Not exactly helping matters.

Should it change his alignment? Not unless he exhibits a pattern of engaging in evil behavior. But if he had been a paladin - whoo boy - welcome to ex-paladin city, population you. So it's a good thing he's a monk.

So words like Unquestionably bother me. Alignment is and always will be subjective. In my game, it would be not evil, in your world it is, if their was no question, their would be no discussion, we would all agree on it, which we clearly don't. My question for those who say killing her is evil is, what would you do with her? Keep in mind the lore for Medusa is that they are notorious liars.


Theo Stern wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:

Was what the monk did evil? Unquestionably. I do not subscribe to the idea that killing something evil is automatically not evil or even good by definition. The circumstances matter and even creatures that are usually evil can be victims of horrible events and worthy of pity. Trying to murder such a victim in a fit of pique? Not exactly helping matters.

Should it change his alignment? Not unless he exhibits a pattern of engaging in evil behavior. But if he had been a paladin - whoo boy - welcome to ex-paladin city, population you. So it's a good thing he's a monk.

So words like Unquestionably bother me. Alignment is and always will be subjective. In my game, it would be not evil, in your world it is, if their was no question, their would be no discussion, we would all agree on it, which we clearly don't. My question for those who say killing her is evil is, what would you do with her? Keep in mind the lore for Medusa is that they are notorious liars.

Keep in mind the OP has already stated his world does not work that way, or at least, that it's not black and white and that monsters are not inhrently evil in and of themselves.

Since she was not using her gaze attacks when she could have, and was begging for mercy, I would have given her the mercy and required her to put the mask back on herself (while covering her with held actions). If she did so, then we'd have talked.

Afterwards, there are things that can be done, exile to an island, a wish to change her species, building a mask to cover her face with goggles that block her gaze attack? But we don't know due to the Monk's actions.


From what's described here, the medusa was injured, and a non-combatant. (She hadn't attacked the party, and covering her eyes seems similar in principle to surrendering one's weapons.) The idea of "eliminate any potential threats, even bystanders, no surrenders accepted" as an ethical code sounds very Lawful Evil, and could likely be practiced to by a very anti-heroic Lawful Neutral character. (On the other hand, it's not a stretch to imagine even some LE characters accepting surrender either.)

However, in this case the monk ostensibly just attacked the medusa out of anger, which kind of makes the aforementioned moot -- it was an act of spite, so if anything it would count as simply being decidedly non-Lawful and borderline Evil. An important character trait of virtually any monk is personal discipline, which was temporarily flouted. It sounds like the player in question is unsure as to how to play his character, especially if he's leaving the monk's morality up to a coin flip.

Personally, if I were playing a LN character in that situation, I'd do what I could in the way of healing for the medusa and let her know that she's free to go, but if she tried anything funny she'd be put down.

I think it's important to consider not just what a character does, but why he or she does it when considering issues of alignment and morality.


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.

That's not batman. That's crazy Steve, as internet comic book reviewer Linkara calls him. A crazy hobo who somehow stole batman's outfit.

Batman would never do such a thing. One of his main concerns is never to let anyone come to permanent harm, not even the worst of villains. He doesn't maim and he doesn't kill and certainly wouldn't blow up an entire planet.

Anyway back to the topic: Seeing how the medusa was clearly and obviously a slave, killing her was evil. It doesn't even need to be put in context of wether or not it was refusal to be merciful. It was murder. Period.
I wouldn't shift alignment there yet, but move it a good chunk closer to evil for the character.


Threeshades wrote:


Batman would never do such a thing. One of his main concerns is never to let anyone come to permanent harm, not even the worst of villains. He doesn't maim and he doesn't kill and certainly wouldn't blow up an entire planet.

Which version of Batman are we talking about? Early Batman who packed a gun? 1950s-60s Batman with the square jaw and square personality? Return of the Dark Knight Batman who maims opponents on a regular basis? Alternate Legion of Superheroes history Batman who broke Lex Luthor's neck despite the act meaning certain death for Batman and other captured heroes?


On the off topic discussion about Batman being a jerk...I don't think he is a jerk....he just pretends to be one and has a huge bluff check.

I think the last Batman movie illustrates this well. When the crime boss called his bluff...he did not do anything. Heck I think him taking the fall for Harvey Dent was more of a attempt to renforce his image of being a jerk than anything else.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Which version of Batman are we talking about? Early Batman who packed a gun? 1950s-60s Batman with the square jaw and square personality? Return of the Dark Knight Batman who maims opponents on a regular basis? Alternate Legion of Superheroes history Batman who broke Lex Luthor's neck despite the act meaning certain death for Batman and other captured heroes?

I've stayed out of the Batman discussion for this very reason.

I've got this image of Adam West using the BatNet to capture Medusa, and advising Robin to avert his eyes. Plus, chances are good he's got a vial of Bat-Anti-Petrification Spray in his utility belt, just in case. Or he totally anticipated this possibility and has been working up an immunity to her petrifying gaze.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lvl 12 Procrastinator wrote:

Great points. Answers:

The fighter was dimly aware of what was going on. When I say that, I mean the fighter, not the player controlling the fighter, of course. But the party was separated by a thin wall, part of which caved in when Orox smashed through it. Long story short, when Medusa was running away from the Monk toward the fighter, all he knew from free action shouts was that the medusa was heading his way. The fighter's alignment, by the way, is true neutral.

The baby was roasted by a flaming sphere spell amid all kinds of chaos fairly early in the encounter: orox charging around, Medusa trying to hide, and 20 morlocks swarming all over the adventurers.

Hrrm, okay, sounds legit from the part of the Fighter. I can see how having a Medusa run towards you might elicit that reaction, although it sounds weird that she didn't try to avoid him or made clear signs of surrendering.

As for that Flaming Sphere, I assume it also was placed accidentally on the baby, then?


Lvl 12 Procrastinator wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Which version of Batman are we talking about? Early Batman who packed a gun? 1950s-60s Batman with the square jaw and square personality? Return of the Dark Knight Batman who maims opponents on a regular basis? Alternate Legion of Superheroes history Batman who broke Lex Luthor's neck despite the act meaning certain death for Batman and other captured heroes?

I've stayed out of the Batman discussion for this very reason.

I've got this image of Adam West using the BatNet to capture Medusa, and advising Robin to avert his eyes. Plus, chances are good he's got a vial of Bat-Anti-Petrification Spray in his utility belt, just in case. Or he totally anticipated this possibility and has been working up an immunity to her petrifying gaze.

Somehow, a medusa feels like it could be a recurring Adam West-Batman villain, and I can totally picture some pale woman dressed in a pencil dress and wearing floppy Jim Henson puppet-snakes on her head.

Dark Archive

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...

The question should not be "is this act evil?" the question should be "is this act an evil act in a long string of evil acts?" A single event isn't enough to change someone's alignment, not unless the alignment system is egg-shell based.


magnuskn wrote:
As for that Flaming Sphere, I assume it also was placed accidentally on the baby, then?

No. Baby looks at monk, monk fails save, monk turns to stone. Same round, druid casts flaming sphere and places it right at the table and the baby. Baby is killed instantly, Medusa makes save and rolls off the table to the other side.

I'm not inclined to judge the druid too harshly here. The way the players' faces cringed at the table when I read the description (oh how I wish I had a photo!), I think they saw the baby as a crime against nature, the bizarre product of an unholy union between a raging mutant atrocity and his monstrous victim. They certainly weren't using the word "baby" to describe it. "Offspring," "atrocity," and "thing" were the terms used, I believe.

This makes me think of John Carpenter's The Thing. Some things, when you see them, you just don't stop to negotiate with. Lots of factors make that situation different from this one, but still...the instinct would be strong to kill it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lvl 12 Procrastinator wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
As for that Flaming Sphere, I assume it also was placed accidentally on the baby, then?

No. Baby looks at monk, monk fails save, monk turns to stone. Same round, druid casts flaming sphere and places it right at the table and the baby. Baby is killed instantly, Medusa makes save and rolls off the table to the other side.

I'm not inclined to judge the druid too harshly here. The way the players' faces cringed at the table when I read the description (oh how I wish I had a photo!), I think they saw the baby as a crime against nature, the bizarre product of an unholy union between a raging mutant atrocity and his monstrous victim. They certainly weren't using the word "baby" to describe it. "Offspring," "atrocity," and "thing" were the terms used, I believe.

This makes me think of John Carpenter's The Thing. Some things, when you see them, you just don't stop to negotiate with. Lots of factors make that situation different from this one, but still...the instinct would be strong to kill it.

Well, it seems to fall into a grey zone, that's true. On one hand, innocent creature, on the other hand, uncontrolled petrifying gaze which just turned their comrade to stone. I think there could have been a less lethal method to deal with it, but there is enough moral leeway to not judge the Druid too harshly for what he did.


Ævux wrote:
Kamelguru wrote:
Oliver McShade wrote:

Alignment is what and how a creature treats other.

The whole role the dice, to decide his next action part, bother me more. As relying on chance and luck sounds more chaotic to me, that just picking an action and following throw with it (for better or worse), as lawful.

"I'm gonna flip a coin. You win, you get to live, you lose, you die."

- Two-face

Yep, definitely a chaotic act. Leaving important things up to chance is a no-no for a monk. Their entire existence is challenging their boundaries through iron discipline and unwavering focus. A coin toss is about the least monk-like I can imagine.

Cept it was a player who was rolling the die not the monk. Just because a player is playing a monk doesn't mean they are a monk..

Agreed! I question the 50 - 50 chance... but on more than one occassion I've forced a wisdom check on my character to make a couple of decisions.

It helps cut down on 'player knowledge' interfering with 'character knowledge' Also known as... 'Am I going to act on table knowledge.... or.... do something remarkably STUPID.

Just because YOU know the wizard is casting a fireball on initative 5... doesn't mean you CHARACTER knows it on 10...


Kais86 wrote:

@Kaeyoss: I've actually ran into a villain that was both hideously evil and a victim of circumstance. This villain is called Stigmata, admittedly it's a superhero game, because if it wasn't there isn't a character I could build that could take this guy.

He's a full-conversion cyborg, a brain in a jar hidden somewhere in a robot body, he's gone mad from something called cyber-psychosis (it's the same reason every Robocop after the first one failed), and he is an irredeemable monster. I am morally obligated to kill him, because if I don't he will kill and kill again. Even if I destroy his body, someone down the line is going to break him out and put him to work again.

Being a victim of circumstance is not quite what I mean. Sure, the guy was hit hard by bad luck and became robo-insane (the best kind of insane!), but in the end, he was a psychotic killing machine (quite literally!). He's not someone who isn't actually that bad and was misrepresented somehow.

Plus, I somehow don't think that he'll elicit the same response as say, the Joker from Dark Knight (a guy you can't help but hate when you're up against him).


One issue I have: If the GM is allowing monsters to have gray areas, the PCs should get gray areas as well. Otherwise it smells like GM jerkery (not that this is the case here).

I still support the "not evil" stance. Not good, definitely not nice. But letting the dice decide the actions is pretty much a definition of chaotic.

Finally, despite the GMs world being "not cut and dried" when it comes to alignment, most players hear "medusa" and think "evil." It's listed in the book as evil, and no one's ever really met a good medusa. Sort of like a lot of people hear "snake" and think "slimy." My mother in law went after a garter snake with a shovel (dang funny to watch, not so much fun for the snake) because she has a phobia.

The PC in question behaved like a jerk for beating a (relatively) defenseless critter, maybe like a police officer does when cuffing someone who's run from him. Jerkiness is not evil.

Definitely chaotic, though.


John Kretzer wrote:

So the medusa is not 'always' evil.

2) Even in 3.5(and I am pretty sure in 3rd ed) 'always' did not mean 100%. And it is possible to redeem such creatures.

In 3.5, "always" in regards to alignment meant that they were pretty much all of that alignment. Exceptions were rare - one-in-a-million or even unique.

However, medusae weren't "always LE", they were "usually LE". Usually meant that the alignment listed was the most popular choice, but the others were not impossible.

Medusae are monstrous humanoids, after all. Unlike outsiders, where alignment is more part of their nature than flash and blood, their alignment wasn't something that was in their very nature. There might have been natural tendencies, and circumstance and society would reinforce them, but it's not like a devil, which is a creature that embodies order and evil.


Kamelguru wrote:


Can you tell me ONE thing in the bestiary more frightening than a group of adventurers?

Rust monster.

The Exchange

Apparently evil will have to fight evil since now even nuetral must be namby pamby and spend the treasury of every town on prisons or simply letting every threat loos to kill more innocent.


Doug's Workshop wrote:

One issue I have: If the GM is allowing monsters to have gray areas, the PCs should get gray areas as well. Otherwise it smells like GM jerkery (not that this is the case here).

How exactly does Gray PCs work? They ignore their alignments? Or, Evil PCs are allowed to travel with Good PCs, and the Good PCs can't do anything to the Evil PCs and vice versa?

PCs are, by definition, gray. They can run the gamut from LG to CN (Or LN to CE in evil campaigns).

If on the other hand you mean Player Races must be allowed to be gray, then... yeah, that's pretty much the case in every game I've ever been in. There's evil humans, evil elves, evil dwarves, evil halflings, evil gnomes.

The only restriction on player characters come from the rules directly. There's no rule saying you have to play a LG human. The only rules are class specific (chaotic barbarians, lawful monks, paladins).

PCs can even play Evil characters, if the GM ok's it and is running an evil campaign.


Andrew R wrote:
Apparently evil will have to fight evil since now even nuetral must be namby pamby and spend the treasury of every town on prisons or simply letting every threat loos to kill more innocent.

Apparently, you are unable to comment without making a mockery of everyone else's playstyles. Yours is the only valid play style, where any subtlety is derided as 'namby pamby'.

You would, I assume, prefer games where everyone can get by without any thought or roleplaying requirements, just show up, kill the things that don't have the same skin color or ears as you, and go home happy with the loot you took (oh, and don't forget to kill the children and babies, they is evil and need to be dead). Sounds more like a video game than an RPG to me, slaughter anything that's not me and let the gods sort them out.

101 to 150 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