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.
That's b!!&#+#!. This is far from "every threat". However, characters (and, more importantly, players) are required to use their brain some time. For brainless monster slaying, there is Diablo.
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.
If I remember correctly, in 3.5, Always indicated less than 1%, if any, were of a different alignment. Usually just meant a majority of them were (IE: 50.0001% to 99%). Often just meant it was as likely to be that alignment as it was to be any of the other 8 alignments. So something like 20% to 40%.
Everyone, it might be useful to check the Medusa write-up from the PFSRD:
Medusas are human-like creatures with snakes instead of hair. At distances of 30 feet or more, a medusa can easily pass for a beautiful woman if she wears something to cover her serpentine locks—when wearing clothing that conceals her head and face, she can be mistaken for a human at even closer distances. Medusas 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 medusas take care to hide the evidence of their previous conflicts so that new foes won't have advance warning of their presence.
Used to concealing themselves, medusas in cities are usually rogues, while those in the wilderness often pass themselves off as rangers or trackers. The most notorious and legendary medusas, though, are those who take levels as bards or clerics. Charismatic and intelligent, urban medusas are often involved with thieves' guilds or other aspects of the criminal underworld. Medusas may form alliances with blind creatures or intelligent undead, both of which are immune to their stony gaze. Spellcasting medusas often serve as oracles or prophets, usually dwelling in remote locations of legendary power or infamous history. Such oracle medusas take great delight in their roles, and if presented with the proper gifts and flattery, the secrets they offer can be quite helpful. Of course, the lairs of such potent creatures are liberally decorated with statues of those who have offended them, so the seeker of knowledge is well advised to tred carefully during such meetings.
All known medusas are female. Rarely, a medusa may decide to keep a male humanoid as a mate, usually with the help of elixirs of love or similar magic, and is always careful to not petrify her prisoner—at least until she grows tired of his company.
Medusae are perfectly civilized creatures who are completely capable of not petrifying everyone around them. I mean, you've got medusae in cities as rogues. If they just wandered into the tavern and petrified everyone, not only would people notice, but there'd be no one to serve them a beer.
As for the LE alignment tag, that's just advice on how to play them, not written into stone. There are probably plenty who are NE and an equal measure who are LN. LG? Probably some. An elderly LG medusa would make an excellent headmistress for a school for the blind.
Medusae are perfectly civilized creatures who are completely capable of not petrifying everyone around them. I mean, you've got medusae in cities as rogues. If they just wandered into the tavern and petrified everyone, not only would people notice, but there'd be no one to serve them a beer.
As for the LE alignment tag, that's just advice on how to play them, not written into stone. There are probably plenty who are NE and an equal measure who are LN. LG? Probably some. An elderly LG medusa would make an excellent headmistress for a school for the blind.
You're unfortunately arguing with people who insist that the monster entry is a detailed entry that says exactly what each individual creature is like. If it has LE on it, then obviously, every last member of the species is LE from the time it's conceived till their PC hacks it into tiny bits and takes it's things.
Now, I do have to remember the Matron LG Medusa for the school for the blind for future gaming. :)
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.
No, I'm saying that if monsters are evil but not evil, don't expect PCs to be Good. Expect them to bend their alignments just as the GM has bent the monsters' alignments. The straightjacket of alignment had better be loosened for both.
Now, I don't believe that alignment is or should be a straightjacket. A lawful good PC can perform an evil act and not have an alignment change. Similarly, a lawful neutral PC can have a chaotic moment and not have an alignment change. But if a you're going to run monsters as "kinda evil not really" you have to allow PCs to be "kinda good/lawful not really." Sauce for the goose has to be sauce for the gander and all that.
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.
Neutral can act evilly at times -- it doesn't make the actions any less evil though.
Besides I'm not saying 'punish him!" and I don't see anyone else saying to either. Just that what he did was evil and chaotic too.
***********************
Right I partially take that back -- some are advocating for immediate alignment change -- which is just as crazy as saying that murdering a medusa that just had a child, that was the product of rape, and is a slave, covered in 3rd degree burns and begging for mercy while cowering having never attacked isn't evil.
No, I'm saying that if monsters are evil but not evil, don't expect PCs to be Good. Expect them to bend their alignments just as the GM has bent the monsters' alignments. The straightjacket of alignment had better be loosened for both.Now, I don't believe that alignment is or should be a straightjacket. A lawful good PC can perform an evil act and not have an alignment change. Similarly, a lawful neutral PC can have a chaotic moment and not have an alignment change. But if a you're going to run monsters as "kinda evil not really" you have to allow PCs to be "kinda good/lawful not really." Sauce for the goose has to be sauce for the gander and all that.
First off, monsters are evil, or not evil, or good. However, that's an individual. Just like a PC is good, neutral, or evil.
However, I think what you're saying is, if alignment is not fixed by species, then a PC should not become evil for doing a single evil act, nor good for doing a single good act, no matter how good or evil that act is?
In that case, we agree. A single act should never, by itself, change an alignment. Now, I suppose there might be some acts that do so, but you'd have to be premeditating it. Like, torturing your family to death and selling their souls to a devil. That would probably be pretty much an instant trip to Evil. However, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a lapse in judgement changing alignment. And no, that should never happen. A paladin might lose his powers for a lapse in judgement and need an atonement, but that's a different story, and he hasn't lost his alignment, just his Paladin Wonder Twin powers.
However, a character that repeatedly has 'lapses' in judgement should change his alignment, or have it changed for him. I had a player in the past that I just flat out refused to let him play a lawful character. He couldn't behave lawful in a game more than 15 minutes, he was at best neutral, usually chaotic. So it got to where I just told him to either play N or C and don't bother trying. He laughed and acknowledged it and that was the end of that.
However, I think what you're saying is, if alignment is not fixed by species, then a PC should not become evil for doing a single evil act, nor good for doing a single good act, no matter how good or evil that act is?In that case, we agree.
Yes, we do.
|
Justified, perhaps, but this is an internet argument and getting angry won't help. Then again, KittyAvatarTroll didn't help either.
Yeah, that's why I had to step away for a bit. I'm sorry if I sounded too ragey upthread.
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/
I've known about the comic but I've never given it a serious look before. I'll have to check it out now. Thanks for the recommendation!
And damn my gender-confusing avatar.
[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]
This post right here needs to be framed and/or carved into stone.
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.
Just got to this point in the thread, and have to say, right now...totally agree. I can't understand parties that won't try to help the victims, as long as they know they're the victims.
No, I'm saying that if monsters are evil but not evil, don't expect PCs to be Good. Expect them to bend their alignments just as the GM has bent the monsters' alignments. The straightjacket of alignment had better be loosened for both.
Actualy. No Monsters are not all evil. And what are you doing looking at my Bestiary as a player? If I as a DM decided to make the medusa in the above scenario lets say LN and she acts within that alignment...how am I bending the alignment rules?
If a PC makes a dwarf...do you make them have to be LG something?
Or a Elf CG something?
Because that is what it says in the MM to do.
Now, I don't believe that alignment is or should be a straightjacket. A lawful good PC can perform an evil act and not have an alignment change. Similarly, a lawful neutral PC can have a chaotic moment and not have an alignment change.(cut)
I agree with this a hundred percent. I would just give the player a strike towards both evil...and chaotic. But it was in the heat of a moment...I might remove it if the play RPs his character's remorse.
|
|
I might remove it if the play RPs his character's remorse.
If the character can move beyond just seeing the medusa as a trophy in their bag at least.
Personally, if they haven't found it already, I'd have the walls of her cell or whatever else she was held in scratched all over with prayers to all the gods she held and then some to save her. Just to drive it home and destroy any plausible deniability about the situation.
And what are you doing looking at my Bestiary as a player?
I've been playing for about 30 years. I don't need a Bestiary to know that medusas are evil.
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.
Make a real argument or don't bother commenting. Snark and hyperbole are not welcome. That also applies to misrepresenting statements. If you have a quote then post it. Otherwise you are just making stuff up.
This will be my last time responding to a non-argument(debate based post).
What was the medusa doing before she fell to the ground and covered her eyes? its not like she cant take her hands away as a non action and say "peekaboo" and turn someone to stone.
If she was in a fight even a paladin would not be required to take the enormous risk that she's faking it with such a dangerous opponent. He probably SHOULD. But he doesn't have to.
If she was walking down the street then the paladin is certainly obligated to listen to her. The LN monk is likewise unless there's a law against monsters being in the town on pain of death.
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.
Wait a moment. I just noticed something..
Introduction.. monk gets turned to stone, thing that turned him to stone dies, somehow he becomes unpetrified and then the medusa begs for mercy at which time he unleashes an attack via ki pool.
What attack did he use in ki pool?
Was the monk (not the player) but the monk actually aware that there was a baby?
|
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).
True, but comparing Stigmata to Heath Ledger's performance is unfair, Heath had charisma to spare.
What was the medusa doing before she fell to the ground and covered her eyes?
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.
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?
If it's a distraction it's a horribly stupid one, to the point that I would as a player let her live to see if her next plot would win her Golarion's version of the Darwin Awards.
True, but comparing Stigmata to Heath Ledger's performance is unfair, Heath had charisma to spare.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).
You need to have charisma to get the heroes really worked up.
|
|
What was the medusa doing before she fell to the ground and covered her eyes?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.
If it's a distraction it's a horribly stupid one, to the point that I would as a player let her live to see if her next plot would win her Golarion's version of the Darwin Awards.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?
Exactly what I was thinking.
|
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.Make a real argument or don't bother commenting. Snark and hyperbole are not welcome. That also applies to misrepresenting statements. If you have a quote then post it. Otherwise you are just making stuff up.
This will be my last time responding to a non-argument(debate based post).
EVERY alignment thread is about how good (and now neutral even) must act in a saintly manner or be evil.It is starting to look like there is no way to effectively fight and beat evil without being evil in the veiws of so many here. Snarky or not im right, what DO you do with the hordes of surrendering monsters that are nigh impossable to imprison without outragous threat to the jailer? If the heroes even survive to get them to a prison and how do they accomplish a thing if they are in non-stop prisoner transport?
|
|
EVERY alignment thread is about how good (and now neutral even) must act in a saintly manner or be evil.It is starting to look like there is no way to effectively fight and beat evil without being evil in the veiws of so many here. Snarky or not im right, what DO you do with the hordes of surrendering monsters that are nigh impossable to imprison without outragous threat to the jailer? If the heroes even survive to get them to a prison and how do they accomplish a thing if they are in non-stop prisoner transport?
Bull-f+~#ing h~*+@@~$$. You know damn well that isn't what's being discussed here.
Or do you really think people getting upset over a victim of rape pleading for mercy being beaten down out of spite and baby killing falls under "Namby-pamby"? Do you?
|
|
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.Neutral can act evilly at times -- it doesn't make the actions any less evil though.
Besides I'm not saying 'punish him!" and I don't see anyone else saying to either. Just that what he did was evil and chaotic too.
***********************
Right I partially take that back -- some are advocating for immediate alignment change -- which is just as crazy as saying that murdering a medusa that just had a child, that was the product of rape, and is a slave, covered in 3rd degree burns and begging for mercy while cowering having never attacked isn't evil.
The problem i see is how many of the facts were obvious to the players (and more importantly PCs)? What is the overall alignment tone of the world? That statement was at alignment threads in general, not this one incident. Just getting sick of the insane alignment standards i hear from so many
|
|
EVERY alignment thread is about how good (and now neutral even) must act in a saintly manner or be evil.It is starting to look like there is no way to effectively fight and beat evil without being evil in the veiws of so many here. Snarky or not im right, what DO you do with the hordes of surrendering monsters that are nigh impossable to imprison without outragous threat to the jailer? If the heroes even survive to get them to a prison and how do they accomplish a thing if they are in non-stop prisoner transport?Bull-f!%%ing h~+@+!&*$. You know damn well that isn't what's being discussed here.
Or do you really think people getting upset over a victim of rape pleading for mercy being beaten down out of spite and baby killing falls under "Namby-pamby"? Do you?
As i have said, that isn't this situation per se, just a comment on alignment discussions as a whole. Was it out of spite or fear? Do they KNOW she is sincere and not going to merely glance at them and kill?
|
|
As i have said, that isn't this situation per se, just a comment on alignment discussions as a whole. Was it out of spite or fear? Do they KNOW she is sincere and not going to merely glance at them and kill?EVERY alignment thread is about how good (and now neutral even) must act in a saintly manner or be evil.It is starting to look like there is no way to effectively fight and beat evil without being evil in the veiws of so many here. Snarky or not im right, what DO you do with the hordes of surrendering monsters that are nigh impossable to imprison without outragous threat to the jailer? If the heroes even survive to get them to a prison and how do they accomplish a thing if they are in non-stop prisoner transport?Bull-f!%%ing h~+@+!&*$. You know damn well that isn't what's being discussed here.
Or do you really think people getting upset over a victim of rape pleading for mercy being beaten down out of spite and baby killing falls under "Namby-pamby"? Do you?
Then perhaps you should have saved your gripe for its own thread instead of taking a shot at everyone whose playstyle doesn't match your own perfect damn criteria in a thread about a seriously f%$%ing touchy subject.
The problem i see is how many of the facts were obvious to the players (and more importantly PCs)? What is the overall alignment tone of the world?
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.
|
|
The problem i see is how many of the facts were obvious to the players (and more importantly PCs)? What is the overall alignment tone of the world?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.
And in a grey area campeign one act should never warrant an alignment change, as he said, no clear right and wrong.
And in a grey area campeign one act should never warrant an alignment change, as he said, no clear right and wrong.
… Was that addressed to me or just a general comment on "gray area campaigns"?
|
|
And in a grey area campeign one act should never warrant an alignment change, as he said, no clear right and wrong.… Was that addressed to me or just a general comment on "gray area campaigns"?
it is adressed to anyone that uses that arguement to say that she should have been treated like any person not as an evil monster.
So it's a general comment. Ok.
|
|
It's like Jacobs said.. There are a lot of DM's out there who go out of thier way to set up alignment traps, especially if a Paladin is in the party. Not that Paladins shouldn't be morally and ethically challenged, they should. But there is a point where one has gone beyond versimilitude and stepped straight to the bad side of manipulative gamesmanship.
And some of us prefer settings where entire races of sentient beings aren't okay to murder just because they were born into the wrong race.
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.
Medusa CR 7
LE Medium monstrous humanoid
Source: PFSRD ;)
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.
Medusa CR 7
LE Medium monstrous humanoid
Source: PFSRD ;)
All evil things must be killed? Sarenrae and her followers would disagree.
It's interesting how Evil gets thrown around. All evil beings seem to require the same punishment, despite what their actual evil actions may call for.
|
|
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.
Medusa CR 7
LE Medium monstrous humanoid
Source: PFSRD ;)
However, the OP has thrown that rule out, stating that this medusa was not automatically Evil.
Also, killing Evil is still Evil according to the alignment rules.
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.
Nothing in there about 'except when killing an Evil creature'.
|
|
Not murdering babies and victims of sexual assault is a solid start.Being good has never been about doing things the easy way. It's about doing things the right way.Define right and how it works
Both are by their very existence a threat to all life, as already proven. being a baby or victim doesn't negate the possibility of them being evil or even if not evil unintentionally killing anything it comes into contact with
|
|
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.
Medusa CR 7
LE Medium monstrous humanoid
Source: PFSRD ;)All evil things must be killed? Sarenrae and her followers would disagree.
Did you read the part about the swift justice by scimitar?
Not all can be redeemed and sarenrae and her followers are not stupid.
Did you read the part about the swift justice by scimitar?
Not all can be redeemed and sarenrae and her followers are not stupid.
I read it.
Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues, and if enemies of the faith can be redeemed, they should be. Yet there are those who have no interest in redemption, who glory in slaughter and death. From the remorseless evil of the undead and fiends to the cruelties born in the hearts of mortals, Sarenrae's doctrines preach swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge.
It's not kill all evil though, it's redeem those that can be redeemed and kill those that can't. Clearly Sarenrae doesn't believe in Tryn's "all evil things deserve to die" idea.
|
|
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.
Medusa CR 7
LE Medium monstrous humanoid
Source: PFSRD ;)All evil things must be killed? Sarenrae and her followers would disagree.
Did you read the part about the swift justice by scimitar?
Not all can be redeemed and sarenrae and her followers are not stupid.
They're alos not heartless, racist, absolutist butchers.
They're also big on mercy.
|
|
Both are by their very existence a threat to all life, as already proven. being a baby or victim doesn't negate the possibility of them being evil or even if not evil unintentionally killing anything it comes into contact withNot murdering babies and victims of sexual assault is a solid start.Being good has never been about doing things the easy way. It's about doing things the right way.Define right and how it works
So don't even bother with a fix as simple and effective as a bag over the head and bindings. It's just kill-kill-kill and that's fine and good?
No thanks.