Also, killing Evil is still Evil according to the alignment rules.
In that case, there would be no such thing as Paladins.
Now, I agree 100% that inflicting cruelty is still Evil, even when it is applied to Evil creatures, and that gank-killing anyone who pings your detect evil-- for whatever purpose-- is both chaotic and evil, but if the game is supposedly about "heroes" and 90% of the rules are about mortal combat, clearly it is intended that the heroes will be doing a good deal of killing.
The Good vs. Evil paradigm of the game still leaves a goodly amount of room for nuance, but if there's room enough for the monsters-- the game's opponents-- to be anything other than irredeemably Evil, then there has to be enough room for the heroes to sometimes be less than paragons of virtue themselves, and still be considered heroes. Once you start mixing up your monsters with your innocent victims, you have to accept that some of your innocent victims are going to become collateral damage; the price of playing morally complicated games is having morally complicated players.
And when we are dealing with a creature that represents a clear and present danger to everyone around it, it is not nearly as clear that our heroes were in the wrong as some people seem to think it is.
They're alos not heartless, racist, absolutist butchers.
It would seem to me that the reason racism is wrong is that the supposed physical and mental differences between the races are unfounded. This is clearly not the case in Pathfinder, in which those differences are both very real and potentially very deadly.
Well, plague victims are obviously evil monsters, and it is right and good to put them to the sword whenever they appear. :)
Paladins are immune to disease. Clearly, falling victim to the plague is a sign of moral deficiency.
|
Clearly! :)
In that case, there would be no such thing as Paladins.
Counterpoint #1: Atonement.
Counterpoint #2: "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features." Can a paladin who was being assailed by a barbarian orc with a greataxe be considered to have willfully killed the orc?
But yes, I agree that by RAW Paladins are forbidden from killing or they become ex-paladins.
And when we are dealing with a creature that represents a clear and present danger to everyone around it, it is not nearly as clear that our heroes were in the wrong as some people seem to think it is.
I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was an Evil act.
Now, I agree 100% that inflicting cruelty is still Evil, even when it is applied to Evil creatures, and that gank-killing anyone who pings your detect evil-- for whatever purpose-- is both chaotic and evil, but if the game is supposedly about "heroes" and 90% of the rules are about mortal combat, clearly it is intended that the heroes will be doing a good deal of killing.
I agree, simple "It's evil, kill it!" isn't good.
The Good vs. Evil paradigm of the game still leaves a goodly amount of room for nuance, but if there's room enough for the monsters-- the game's opponents-- to be anything other than irredeemably Evil, then there has to be enough room for the heroes to sometimes be less than paragons of virtue themselves, and still be considered heroes. Once you start mixing up your monsters with your innocent victims, you have to accept that some of your innocent victims are going to become collateral damage; the price of playing morally complicated games is having morally complicated players.
I'd agree, but add that even with collateral damage being possible heroes should be trying to avoid killing innocents when they can.
And when we are dealing with a creature that represents a clear and present danger to everyone around it, it is not nearly as clear that our heroes were in the wrong as some people seem to think it is.
Dangerous, clearly. Immediate threat, no. They had time to consider options and decide what to do.
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 ;)
Yes, but show me where it says that a medusa is an Evil Creature, a creature which is from her heart evil.
I have looked in the PRD, that other PRD-like site, and in the Bestiary itself. Nowhere does it say that.
And I looked in the 3.5e SRD, and it actually says something different there, as the alignment is "usually LE" there, which might mean that those critters are more often LE than not, but not that they're all evil. That's "Always LE", and even that isn't always always.
Leaving aside Diskworld as that's a comedy satire
And there you're committing a huge error. One should never leave aside Discworld. In fact, the whole matter of alignment, of good and evil, makes a lot more sense in Discworld writings than in PFRPG.
In fact, I'd say that in the matter of "alignment", Discworld is closely modelling reality while PFRPG is the satire, exaggerating matters to show them up.
Paladins are immune to disease. Clearly, falling victim to the plague is a sign of moral deficiency.
The male cow manure factor of this thread keeps rising. Soon we'll all be in over our necks in the stuff...
Arguing that because Paladins, being LG and measured by a higher moral standard than even other LG characters, are immune to disease, being afflicted by disease is immoral is either insufficiently labelled sarcasm (not that you're the only offender, though I cannot see the posts of some of the other offenders apparently, thanks to the ignore script) or utter hogwash.
Paladins are immune to disease thanks to divine grace (the concept, not the class feature), not because they're LG and have a code. They need to be LG and have a code to be eligible for that grace, but it's not an automatic thing.
Of course, such reasoning has been employed in the past in the real world, with disastrous results, as people who believed that this plague or that only befell the morally crippled undertook no reasonable precautions to protect themselves, only to be afflicted as well.
They're alos not heartless, racist, absolutist butchers.It would seem to me that the reason racism is wrong is that the supposed physical and mental differences between the races are unfounded. This is clearly not the case in Pathfinder, in which those differences are both very real and potentially very deadly.
More hogwash. Even in our world, races are different. Black people are black. That alone is a big, real, obvious difference from white people. There are more differences, from further differences in appearance to differences in the immune systems of different races, and so on. And they are often mentally different, too (though that's partially a cultural thing, of course).
The reason racism is wrong, both in a fantasy world and in our real world, is that is says because those people are different from us, they're inferior, not real people, and similar crap.
That is as wrong in the fantasy world as it is in the real world, i.e. very.
|
|
You need to have charisma to get the heroes really worked up.
Not true, Stigmata has the hero worked up, and I can assure you he has a low charisma. The only thing he has going for him is a really high intimidate bonus, on account of him being a 10 foot tall metal monster shaped like a gargoyle. He can't really inspire anyone to do anything until he starts brutalizing them. I don't even think he can tell a convincing lie. I'm pretty sure he's worthless in diplomacy. I doubt he can do any form of performance aside from killing people. He's just not very charismatic.
You need to have charisma to get the heroes really worked up.Not true, Stigmata has the hero worked up, and I can assure you he has a low charisma. The only thing he has going for him is a really high intimidate bonus, on account of him being a 10 foot tall metal monster shaped like a gargoyle. He can't really inspire anyone to do anything until he starts brutalizing them. I don't even think he can tell a convincing lie. I'm pretty sure he's worthless in diplomacy. I doubt he can do any form of performance aside from killing people. He's just not very charismatic.
He might have the players worked up, but I guess it's more the "we have to stop his evildoing" kind of being worked up and not the "I'm going to take that bastard down if it kills me" variety.
But of course, the charisma thing isn't an absolute. It just really, really helps.
|
|
He might have the players worked up, but I guess it's more the "we have to stop his evildoing" kind of being worked up and not the "I'm going to take that bastard down if it kills me" variety.
But of course, the charisma thing isn't an absolute. It just really, really helps.
The character isn't quite to the "I'm going to take that bastard down even if it kills me" but her intent is to rip him apart and throw his fragments into the sun or a black hole if she gets the chance.
She is really pissed at him, he killed a metahuman cop right in front of her, in her home town, then he teleported away leaving only chunks of the fundamentally decent person on the ground. The next time they met he stole her arm. While she's physically okay with it(self-repairing robot) she takes serious offense to it, the guy was eating corpses while they were gathering medical supplies from a wrecked hospital.
Part of his psychosis is that he thinks he needs to eat people to maintain his brain.
Counterpoint #1: Atonement.
Doesn't work on Evil acts, only Chaotic ones.
Counterpoint #2: "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features." Can a paladin who was being assailed by a barbarian orc with a greataxe be considered to have willfully killed the orc?
I'd say that depends largely on whose house the Paladin is in. If the barbarian is attacking a town and the Paladin is defending it, then it's not willful on his part. On the other hand, if the orcs have been making frequent raids on the town and the Paladin seeks them out to destroy them, I think it's clearly a willful act on his part.
And I would argue that this in no fashion constitutes an Evil act, or anything less than heroism on his part. This is the sort of things Paladins are expected to do.
But yes, I agree that by RAW Paladins are forbidden from killing or they become ex-paladins.
I do not read that text as a statement that killing is itself an Evil act, but as an example of patterns of behavior exhibited by Evil creatures. Similarly, I view the section of the Code of Conduct that describes "honorable behavior" as being an example rather than a definition. Like lying, killing is not something that Paladins are prohibited from doing, it is something that requires compelling moral justification.
I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was an Evil act.
Fair enough. I tend to view "wrong" as being a separate entity from the game's definition of "Evil" myself. On the other hand, I don't see this incident as qualifying for either.
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?
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.
Return of the Dark Knight batman is Crazy Steve too. And Frank Miller should've stopped writing long ago.
I'm talking about new earth Batman. Not Dick Grayson, but Bruce Wayne.
You know the one with the personality that they based the Dark Knight movies batman, Arkham Asylum Batman and Under the Red Hood Batman on.
|
|
Return of the Dark Knight batman is Crazy Steve too. And Frank Miller should've stopped writing long ago.
I'm talking about new earth Batman. Not Dick Grayson, but Bruce Wayne.
You know the one with the personality that they based the Dark Knight movies batman, Arkham Asylum Batman and Under the Red Hood Batman on.
I agree with what you say about Frank Miller, but he's certainly not alone (in the list of writers who ought to quit or should have been fired years ago), and he did give us Sin City, which I enjoyed the movie, even if the book was garbage. Though I think he was on crack when he did The Spirit. He's by no means the worst writer in comics right now.
That said: most versions of Batman have a code versus killing people, he tries to keep people from getting hurt, but as is rogue's gallery is a testament to the fact that he isn't very good at keeping people from getting hurt, he is good at keeping them from being killed though. Besides the best Batman ever was the one from Batman the animated series.
You know, the entire time I'm reading this thread, I can't help but relate the monk to Valorius, the knight from Journey Quest.
He was also too brave to spare the women and children of an orc village (and retirement village).
And after stabbing a water spirit who was welcoming him to the Healing Waters of... we'll, she doesn't get to finish because he runs her through. She exclaims that she can't believe he stabbed her, and he cheerfully corrects her with "Bravely stabbed you!"
So yes, the monk "Bravely" beat up on a suffering, tortured women who hadn't done him any direct harm. He didn't do it because he was concerned that she was a danger to society or because she had harmed him or intended to. He did it because he was angry and wanted to hit something. If that was the player's intent, that was also the character's intent. Simple as that.
Now if you crack the Bestiary to page 5, you notice a rather important comment on alignment in the bottom right hand corner.
The alignments listed for each monster in this
book represent the norm for those monsters—they can
vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of
your campaign.
Further...
Only in the case of relatively unintelligent
monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are
almost never anything other than neutral) and planar
monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those
listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind)
is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.
OP stated that monsters are not necessarily their listed alignments. Medusa's are neither Unintelligent nor Planar, meaning their alignment is not set any more than a human's.
Killing her is no more justified than a person who standing in a crowded market using Detect Good and then killing anyone who doesn't show up as good. After all, Good people don't do bad things, therefore anyone who isn't good is capable of doing bad things whether they mean too. Why suffer the neutral to live, considering what they are capable of?
People are also ignoring the fact that Medusa's also have a tendency to law. So if she isn't evil, and is lawful, she will work to fit in and keep people from getting hurt, or even stay away from populated areas all together. She will also show loyalty to people that do help her.
Moving on, Medusa's can kill people by accident. So can wizards. So can sorcerers. Hell, so can clerics. But Medusa's keep themselves hidden away to prevent that, and there area ways to prevent people from meeting their gaze. Like with dark glasses for example...
If the Medusa isn't evil, she would take efforts to keep people from getting hurt, say by keeping her eyes shut while begging for mercy.
So...
-She was not a willing participant in what was happening.
-She did not harm the party, despite apparently being harmed in the fight.
-When it was all over she kept her eyes shut and begged for mercy, and did not open her eyes to try and freeze some people and try to escape.
And though it doesn't count towards the monk's initial decision to beat her...
-When she was being assaulted despite all her begging, she still didn't turn her gaze on the monk, or attack him in any way.
She has given no impetus for the monk to attack, and is actively working to keep herself from exposing the monk and his companions to her gaze, even when she is under attack again.
Yeah... clearly she's a danger to everyone and everything around her and must be destroyed... She's a terrible, vicious monster with no control over anything she does...
The monk should be commended for being "Too Brave" to show mercy. Maybe he can burn down that half-orc orphanage on the way back to town. Each of the kids is 50% evil, and more than one is probably evil, meaning that the average kid is about 51%+ evil, which makes their violent extermination all good in the eyes of the gods.
|
Yes, but show me where it says that a medusa is an Evil Creature, a creature which is from her heart evil.
I have looked in the PRD, that other PRD-like site, and in the Bestiary itself. Nowhere does it say that.
And I looked in the 3.5e SRD, and it actually says something different there, as the alignment is "usually LE" there, which might mean that those critters are more often LE than not, but not that they're all evil. That's "Always LE", and even that isn't always always.
Entry from PRD:
Medusa
LE Medium monstrous humanoidOr how about the whole mythological background from where Medusa come from.?
You mean the one where some poor woman was cursed by a royal jerkass of a goddess for the horrible crime of being sexually assaulted by another god in her temple, and later murdered?
Oh yeah, evil of the foulest sort right there.
Even so. this one WAS working for his Big Bad.
JESUS CHRIST. She was ENSLAVED AND RAPED by the Big Bad.
I'm also of the firm belief that such a question would not have been brought up if there wasn't a Paladin in the party, because again some DM's believe that Paladins should be unfairly screwed over by alignment rules made up on the spot.
There was no paladin in the party.
|
|
You mean the one where some poor woman was cursed by a royal jerkass of a goddess for the horrible crime of being sexually assaulted by another god in her temple, and later murdered?
Remember children: if you are dealing with the Greek Gods, you are either going to end up pregnant, cursed, or dead. So if you ever have your choice in the matter: don't go anywhere near them. Try a Norse god, they are usually more fair, and better tempered, about things. Except Loki, don't go anywhere near that guy, just think of him as a Greek god.
|
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...
Not evil. Even paladins kill things.
If I were the player I would say that it was a lawful act. This was the mother of a great evil who had petrified him, and who could in an instant petrify him and his friends.
He doesn't know the back story. Even if she tells him (A lot to get out in 6 seconds) he doesn't know if it is true.
He isn't the DM.
This thing's child tried to kill him. This think is a medusa. This thing could kill him and his friends with it's gaze. I "may" borderline it for a Paladin if there was A LOT of prior proof this particular medusa wasn't evil. MAY.
But this is a lawful neutral monk. He would kill puppies if that were what needed to be done to keep order and sleep well at night. Not evil.
Not evil. Even paladins kill things.
Paladin's kill evil things that threaten other people. This Medusa wasn't doing that.
If I were the player I would say that it was a lawful act.
It was lawful for the man trying to perfect himself through discipline to lose his temper and vent his anger on a helpless, injured and exhausted woman who doesn't fight back?
Wow... I thought he was a monk, not a barbarian. Or do Monks have nothing to do with self-discipline anymore?
This was the mother of a great evil who had petrified him, and who could in an instant petrify him and his friends.
A great evil which had petrified him within two seconds after it was born because it was looking for it's mother. Nothing malicious, a pure accident of a child which had LITERALLY just come into the world. It isn't our mom's fault that we don't know how to walk or talk when we're born, so why is it this thing's mother's fault that the newborn looked at the monk while she was restrained and exhausted a few seconds after it was born? She couldn't have done anything, and I doubt she wanted to give birth that way.
He doesn't know the back story. Even if she tells him (A lot to get out in 6 seconds) he doesn't know if it is true.
He isn't the DM.
She was clearly there against her will, and there really wasn't anything else the GM could do to make that any clearer. If anything, the fact that she hadn't tried to harm them during the fight when she got her mask off says she deserves a chance.
She was clearly a victim.
This thing's child tried to kill him.
Um, no, it looked at him after being born. That is no attempted murder, that is an infant not knowing what it can do, being curious about the world around it and looking at this random guy. Not an attempt to kill anyone.
This think is a medusa. This thing could kill him and his friends with it's gaze. I "may" borderline it for a Paladin if there was A LOT of prior proof this particular medusa wasn't evil. MAY.
How about the fact that she never tried to defend herself? Even when the monk was trying to kill her she didn't turn her gaze on him? She didn't try and petrify the party to effect an escape? That she was chained and naked and being forced to give birth in the middle of a cult room?
If she was human, she would be labeled a victim. That she acted like a human and took no actions against the party (despite being caught in a fireball during the fight) suggests that Evil was the not an active element in her alignment.
Besides, it doesn't matter what her alignment is. Damning something because of its race rather than its action is part of the definition of Lawful Evil. And since it had already acted in a non-violent manner it had shown that it didn't deserve to be attacked anymore than a human woman in the same situation would be.
But this is a lawful neutral monk. He would kill puppies if that were what needed to be done to keep order and sleep well at night. Not evil.
Neutral isn't a justification to do whatever you want. You may not go out of your way to be self-sacrificing, but it doesn't give you a free ride to commit whatever atrocities you want to as long as you can justify it. Instead, you've described Lawful EVIL; being more concerned with order than with justice, and being capable of any act in order to ensure it.
Keep a tally of alignment infractions. Ten (or any number you deem appropriate) steps in either direction changes your alignment one step towards it.
Were I the GM, this monk would have gotten 1 chaotic point; flip a coin to decide on an action, and 2 evil points; attacking a helpless creature that has offered no resistance, and on top of that has done nothing, (and as the OP stated, in his setting, creatures do not default to an alignment), to warrant the assault. Doing genuinely good acts can help mitigate this. (Donating 10 gold to a good church does NOT qualify)
He would get a warning at 50% in either direction, and an explanation of the events leading there.
The Lawful act here (imo) would be to calmly detain her and question her to make sure they learned everything that was to be learned, then reach a decision on what to do. Killing something because it might be a threat is not a lawful thing to do. If it were, all adventuring parties above level 5 would be killed on sight every time they entered a lawful city.
This thing's child tried to kill him.Um, no, it looked at him after being born. That is no attempted murder, that is an infant not knowing what it can do, being curious about the world around it and looking at this random guy. Not an attempt to kill anyone.
You mean it is not common practice for you to smite babies when they puke green on you? They are OBVIOUSLY willfully discharging fiendish plasma from the stygian pits unto unsuspecting people.
Killing babies =/= evil. This thread is better than the wyvern thread :D
|
|
This thing's child tried to kill him.Um, no, it looked at him after being born. That is no attempted murder, that is an infant not knowing what it can do, being curious about the world around it and looking at this random guy. Not an attempt to kill anyone.You mean it is not common practice for you to smite babies when they puke green on you? They are OBVIOUSLY willfully discharging fiendish plasma from the stygian pits unto unsuspecting people.
Killing babies =/= evil. This thread is better than the wyvern thread :D
This.
Owlbear protecting it's young is a threat. Is it evil to kill them?
Medusa can petrify you by looking at you, why wouldn't the player think the whole thing wasn't a trap? Why would the player think this was a "Good" Medusa?
Why would you free a creature that is generally evil to go out and do harm in the world, when you've already seen the damage she can do through her offspring.
Grendel's mother.
|
|
Paladin's kill evil things that threaten other people. This Medusa wasn't doing that.
It is a medusa. She petrifies with her gaze. By her nature she is a threat.
It was lawful for the man trying to perfect himself through discipline to lose his temper and vent his anger on a helpless, injured and exhausted woman who doesn't fight back?Wow... I thought he was a monk, not a barbarian. Or do Monks have nothing to do with self-discipline anymore?
Exhausted MEDUSA. Not a woman. BIG difference
A great evil which had petrified him within two seconds after it was born because it was looking for it's mother. Nothing malicious, a pure accident of a child which had LITERALLY just come into the world. It isn't our mom's fault that we don't know how to walk or talk when we're born, so why is it this thing's mother's fault that the newborn looked at the monk while she was restrained and exhausted a few seconds after it was born? She couldn't have done anything, and I doubt she wanted to give birth that way.
And it still petrified him. If a baby demon tries to eat your face, do you go "Oh, how cute." or do you kill it?
In your games do you walk up to monster and say "Pardon me, what are your future intentions toward mankind so I can determine if it is an evil act to kill you" or do you go "Scary lady who can turn me into a rock if she looks at me!"
She was clearly there against her will, and there really wasn't anything else the GM could do to make that any clearer. If anything, the fact that she hadn't tried to harm them during the fight when she got her mask off says she deserves a chance.
She was clearly a victim.
Clearly to the DM who knows the back story. To a player who walks into the room this is more likely what they think is going on.
Um, no, it looked at him after being born. That is no attempted murder, that is an infant not knowing what it can do, being curious about the world around it and looking at this random guy. Not an attempt to kill anyone.
As I said above, intent isn't the issue. The lizard is hungry when it eats the bug, but it still eats the bug. Unless all your heroes are vegan and covered in unimpeded bug bites, then they kill things who attack then without malicious intent.
In this case, it's a freakin' medusa.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/monstrous-humanoids/medus a
"This slender, attractive woman has strangely glowing eyes and a full head of hissing snakes for hair."
They are by nature, evil.
Is your Paladin offering Parlay while fighting in the Worldwound? No, because he is fighting evil.
And this isn't even a good aligned character, so the standard is even lower.
The DM may know this is an innocent victim, the only medusa with a heart of gold who never plans on doing anything bad to anyone because she will wear glasses and hug kittens.
But to the players, this is the mother of an evil creature, living in an evil creatures home, and in the form of what is 99 times out of 100 an evil creature.
If it walks like a duck...
We don't blame infants for not being able to walk, talk, or control their bodily functions. We also don't enforce the full extent of the law on children until they reach an age where they can know the difference between right and wrong.
Besides, Owlbears are wild animals. Medusaes are intelligent, self-aware beings fully capable of choosing their own actions. If she should be killed because she is capable of being dangerous and deadly, then Good people are justified in killing neutral humans because they are capable of evil acts and are, by definition, not good people.
I haven't been arguing that the child shouldn't have been killed. Just that it wasn't actively trying to kill the Monk and that the mother can't be held responsible for the actions of her child (that was forced on her) the instant it's born. Especially when she is blindfolded and restrained.
Medusa can petrify you by looking at you, why wouldn't the player think the whole thing wasn't a trap? Why would the player think this was a "Good" Medusa?
Um, the fact that she can petrify him and the entire group with a glance and isn't would seem like a point towards her not being evil. Why ask for mercy when you can turn them to stone and run?
And then there's when she doesn't turn her gaze on him when he does start attacking her.
Why would you free a creature that is generally evil to go out and do harm in the world, when you've already seen the damage she can do through her offspring.
Grendel's mother.
Grendel's mother wasn't out and harming anyone until Beowulf killed her son.
However, this mother watched them kill her child in front of her, yet she still didn't act to fight them in any way shape or form. She didn't turn her gaze on them during the fight or when they were attacking her offspring. She didn't turn her gaze on them when she got hit by a fireball in the battle. She didn't turn her gaze on them she was terrified that they were going to kill her when the battle was done.
Actions speak louder than words. She was clearly no threat to them and was actively trying to keep from being one.
Then again, maybe the monk was unsure if he could believe anything she told him.
If only there were spells to ensure that someone is telling the truth... Oh, right... there are.
But maybe his group didn't have any of those spells. Then he would be justified in simply killing her because there isn't a skill that allows you to gauge sincerity... Oh, right... there is.
It is a medusa. She petrifies with her gaze. By her nature she is a threat.
Exhausted MEDUSA. Not a woman. BIG difference
Clearly to the DM who knows the back story. To a player who walks into the room this is more likely what they think is going on.She was clearly there against her will, and there really wasn't anything else the GM could do to make that any clearer. If anything, the fact that she hadn't tried to harm them during the fight when she got her mask off says she deserves a chance.
She was clearly a victim.
You clearly didn't read the description that was given when they walked into the room.
A naked woman squats over a table, exposing her hugely distended belly as she moans in the agony of her labor. A black leather mask covers only her eyes and permits a shock of writhing serpents masquerading as her hair to roil over the top. Her mask is bound in the back to a thick, iron chain leash, about six feet long. The chain’s other end is clenched in the hateful fist of an abomination.
Yeah... any sane person is going to see that and think "she's just as willing as the other people in the room."
If there was no mention of snake hair the players would be treating her as a victim, not victimizing her.
Medusa are dangerous. I don't dispute that. But in a world where they aren't necessarily evil, such as the GM's world, they are capable of choice.
For example, the US has nukes and can destroy any other country with as much ease as a medusa turning someone to stone. The vast majority of the world has no defence against the US or nukes. But no country would be justified in making a pre-emptive strike against the use to destroy it simply because the US is capable of destroying the world.
The medusa, as an intelligent being can choose to avert her gaze, which is something she chose to do, rather than defend herself. She is perfectly capable of existing without killing or turning people to stone, as she had already proven by virtue of not attempting to turn anyone to stone from the moment she got the mask off, even after she was hit by the fireball. Attacking her because she could be a threat and you're angry about something that she had an unwilling and only tangential part of isn't justified by either her race or abilities when she is purposely avoiding taking any action that would harm others.
That's why judging based on race is defined as evil. Good characters aren't allowed to kill people simply because they don't have the good alignment.
Evil is not in the action, but the motivation of the character.
If the lawful Neutral monk kills the helpless medusa because he wants to hear her scream and see blood flow, then it is an act of evil.
If he kills her to eliminate a danger and stop a creature that is giving birth to dangerous monsters, then the act is not good, but not evil either. It falls well into lawful neutral. He is thinking of the needs of the many over the needs of the medusa. A rational action.
If he lashed out because of anger and rash fury then the act is a chaotic one.
A lawful neutral would be disturbed by this because it represents a loss of self control and order, both which are at the core of lawful neutral thinking.
The GM should ask the player why his character attacked the medusa and go from there.
Evil is not in the action, but the motivation of the character.
"Actions speak louder than words."
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Name a single atrocity that the people committing did simply because they wanted to be evil. After all, genocide is usually justified by the threat that the targeted people present to the people committing the crime. They don't make those claims "in case someone asks".
If he kills her to eliminate a danger and stop a creature that is giving birth to dangerous monsters, then the act is not good, but not evil either. It falls well into lawful neutral. He is thinking of the needs of the many over the needs of the medusa. A rational action.
So in order to keep with his rational actions, this character must now kill any woman that has ever gave birth to a half-fiend, half-dragon, tiefling or half-orc or so on, as all of them have given birth to dangerous monsters.
Of course, if he spares them because they weren't doing it willingly and they wouldn't do it again if given the choice, then clearly he's holding a double standard. What about the medusa said willing participant?
The GM should ask the player why his character attacked the medusa and go from there.
The GM pointed out already that it was because the Monk was angry.
Medusa can petrify you by looking at you, why wouldn't the player think the whole thing wasn't a trap?
She's severely burned and stands a poor chance of getting out alive without help? Turning on the players in the next few turns would've been stupid for her to do, about as stupid as begging players for mercy…
Really, she wasn't an immediate threat, they had time to discuss what to do. But weighing options before acting must not be cool.
|
|
Medusa can petrify you by looking at you, why wouldn't the player think the whole thing wasn't a trap?She's severely burned and stands a poor chance of getting out alive without help? Turning on the players in the next few turns would've been stupid for her to do, about as stupid as begging players for mercy…
Really, she wasn't an immediate threat, they had time to discuss what to do. But weighing options before acting must not be cool.
Did I mention she can petrify with her gaze?
Hey guys, Medusa!
Wait guys, wait a minute. She may be a good medusa trapped an evil...
<Talking stopped due to being stone>
TPK FTW.
Medusa can petrify you by looking at you, why wouldn't the player think the whole thing wasn't a trap?She's severely burned and stands a poor chance of getting out alive without help? Turning on the players in the next few turns would've been stupid for her to do, about as stupid as begging players for mercy…
Really, she wasn't an immediate threat, they had time to discuss what to do. But weighing options before acting must not be cool.
Did I mention she can petrify with her gaze?
Hey guys, Medusa!
Wait guys, wait a minute. She may be a good medusa trapped an evil...
<Talking stopped due to being stone>
TPK FTW.
Right...
Because that's exactly what happened.
Except she didn't and that's the point. An intelligent being chose not to use it on the group. She didn't use it on them when they started attacking her despite her begging for mercy.
If her very presence turned people around her to stone, then there would be justification. But there are ways to avoid it, and despite being hurt and scared, she didn't use it on the party. And she still didn't use it when one of them ignored her cries and attacked her.
The medusa had better self-control than the monk.
Did I mention she can petrify with her gaze?Hey guys, Medusa!
Wait guys, wait a minute. She may be a good medusa trapped an evil...
<Talking stopped due to being stone>
TPK FTW.
So, by your logic, all 'neutral' dragons should be killed. They can kill instantly with a breath. Anything that's not good and dangerous needs to be killed, including adventurers, gods, etc.
I would expect you to have an Anti-Mutant League flag in your closet.
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?
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.
Return of the Dark Knight batman is Crazy Steve too. And Frank Miller should've stopped writing long ago.
The Return of the Dark Knight was a long time ago and it's probably one of the highest points in Frank Miller's career. If some lone nutjob on the internet is lumping in that fantastic Batman story as "Crazy Steve"-Batman, then it's clear he has no idea what he's talking about.
Were I the DM with said monk/situation, I would have asked for an explanation of the monk's "thought process" the second he attacked the helpless non-combatant. But, as the OP already noted; even a full round after the attack, he didn't have a justification. Only a reserved hesitation and a pathetic attempt to save face after he realised what he had done.
Without just cause or explanation, as was the case here, I would have immediately forced an alignment change and generated further consequences down the road for this so called "monk".
It may be the "norm" nowadays to simply execute anything that is a percieved threat, but that's not how things work. Those that think otherwise are fools and should, by the same logic, be executed as threats because they don't know how to differentiate combatants from non-combatants.
-Kurocyn
Being good is supposed to be harder than being evil or neutral. Evil just kills anything that could be a threat if it thinks it can get away with it. That's why the argument 'oh it's evil' always infuriates me as a defense for this. It's basically the flip side of evil, it's good, kill it.
What's the difference between the two then? Not a lot.
In the game I'm currently playing in, I'm playing CG warlock/rogue. We have a LN warforged who's over programmed with military discipline and order taking, a NG warforged tinkerer, and a NG Druid.
Last night we were investigating a cult. My character whiffed his charm person save, and the whole game I was absolutely convinced the Vicar was a poor innocent victim of the real culprit (the serving girl who lied to us and we figured it out, obviously she was behind it all, since it couldn't be the vicar). Absolutely drove my wife nuts because she couldn't use player knowledge that I failed my saving throw, and I gave very good IC reasons for why it was the serving girl and not the Vicar. :)
However, the point is, our LN warforged fighter is hard to manage, he's very gung ho. So before we went in, my character made it very very clear to him he was not to kill anyone just disable them. The only exception was if they attacked him with weapons and he felt they could kill him with them, or if they cast magic at him.
The Vicar thought that casting a burning sphere would melt the warforged. Not only didn't it melt him, it allowed him to pull his falchion and charge over and do have the Vicar's hp in one hit. The Vicar paniced and Dimension Doored himself and two of his followers away (Actually, per my character, it was the serving girl that was whispering in his ear telling him to do it, as I was still charmed). :)
Several people in this thread would have then killed the other 3 cult victims, whom we had been told they suspected had been forced into the cult. They all had minor weapons (wooden spoon, frying pan, kitchen knife). They all started attacking the Warforged after he 'slaughtered' their Vicar and sisters using his falchion (they thought he'd disintegrated their Vicar).
Instead, the warforged clubbed them unconscious with a subdual attack.
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
That's going to vary from character to character, but the fundamental statement is correct. It's not merely about gaining a result. Good characters care about the methods used to obtain those results as well. In other words, the farther you get from evil, the higher standards of conduct you expect with respect to the mayhem you cause and/or prevent. This is why being good is a challenge.
This thing's child tried to kill him.Um, no, it looked at him after being born. That is no attempted murder, that is an infant not knowing what it can do, being curious about the world around it and looking at this random guy. Not an attempt to kill anyone.<sarcasm>
You mean it is not common practice for you to smite babies when they puke green on you? They are OBVIOUSLY willfully discharging fiendish plasma from the stygian pits unto unsuspecting people.</sarcasm>Killing babies =/= evil. This thread is better than the wyvern thread :D
Clearer?
Name a single atrocity that the people committing did simply because they wanted to be evil. After all, genocide is usually justified by the threat that the targeted people present to the people committing the crime. They don't make those claims "in case someone asks".[/QOUTE]Don't confuse the real world (tm)with the game world.
In the real world "survival of the fittest" and "History is written by the winners" is the only definition that fits, but in the game world where creatures of absolute evil and good exist and alignment is an actual detectable energy, then the ideals are are firm. Certain motivations are classified as good, evil, lawful or chaotic with neutral square in the middle.
So in order to keep with his rational actions, this character must now kill any woman that has ever gave birth to a half-fiend, half-dragon, tiefling or half-orc or so on, as all of them have given birth to dangerous monsters.".[/QOUTE]Wow, you are really jumping to conclusions here.
The medusa is a threat to society (the monk's society)she is both a dangerous monster with dangerous tendencies and is a tool of the enemy used to generate more monsters. Her death is for the greater good of society. A lawful view, but not a good view. The monks is not interested in redeeming the medusa, just eliminating the threat, killing her is just the most efficient way to do that...nothing personal.A lawful good paladin on the other hand may have to think twice about outright destruction of the medusa. If he could take the extra step to exile her or disable her threat without killing her he would. The lawful neutral monk see the extra step as a wasteful gamble and will go for the most logical solution.
A lawful evil fighter would kill the medusa simply because she is in the way of his plans or could be a threat. If he could find a way to use her, he would spare her life for now.
Of course, if he spares them because they weren't doing it willingly and they wouldn't do it again if given the choice, then clearly he's holding a double standard. What about the medusa said willing participant?".[/QOUTE]The Medusa is a known threat, the monk has no reason to believe she can be redeemed. Her destruction both secures society and releases her from slavery. To the monk, this is the right thing to do.
The GM pointed out already that it was because the Monk was angry.".[/QOUTE]Ok, then the monk is guilty of a chaotic action not an evil one. He will suffer self doubt after having done so.
(How that is handled in gameplay is up to the GM at that point).
I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was an Evil act.
Here's a major problem... Evil IS wrong... by very definition. If something is NOT wrong... then it couldn't have been Evil.
Nor do I believe that a Paladin loses his powers every time he draws his sword... the idea is a little insane. O.o
Out of curiosity... where/how did these GOOD Medusa come from? Ugly disgusting creatures who are naturally posionous... and kill all around them...
were they raised in happy families? I doubt that. Were they socialized well?? Again, Unlikely...
Creatures like that are avoided and shunned if not attacked outright... leading to a life of lonliness and bitterness and results in the standard Frankenstien 'bitterness' and lashing out at humanity.
If THIS medusa is NOT Evil... (especially by some peoples standards) then she has NEVER looked at ANYONE in her life... and is a usefull member of society.
I'm curious how this turned out. Drow and Orcs COULD be considered good... because 'looks evil' is their only basis for racism... Medusa kill with a Look. theres' more than skin color and 'ugly' going on there.
Good characters care about the methods used to obtain those results as well. In other words, the farther you get from evil, the higher standards of conduct you expect with respect to the mayhem you cause and/or prevent. This is why being good is a challenge.
It's more difficult to be good. If players don't want alignments or actual consequenses for their actions (heaven forbid), go play one of the hundreds of video games that rewards evil actions.
Fallout 3 for example: "Oh yeah, I totally nuked Megaton, but I did enough good deeds afterwards to warrent my title as wasteland savior despite my complete lack of remorse. Would I do it again? Heck yeah! Explosions are pretty."
-Kurocyn
|
|
Here's a major problem... Evil IS wrong... by very definition. If something is NOT wrong... then it couldn't have been Evil.
You're confusing the real world definition of 'evil' with the game mechanic tag of 'Evil'.
Creatures like that are avoided and shunned if not attacked outright... leading to a life of lonliness and bitterness and results in the standard Frankenstien 'bitterness' and lashing out at humanity.
CAN lead to that. Not MUST lead to that.
I'm curious how this turned out. Drow and Orcs COULD be considered good... because 'looks evil' is their only basis for racism... Medusa kill with a Look. theres' more than skin color and 'ugly' going on there.
Plague victims spread disease with a touch, or even just a cough. There's more than boils and unattractive respiration there.
Don't confuse the real world (tm)with the game world.In the real world "survival of the fittest" and "History is written by the winners" is the only definition that fits, but in the game world where creatures of absolute evil and good exist and alignment is an actual detectable energy, then the ideals are are firm. Certain motivations are classified as good, evil, lawful or chaotic with neutral square in the middle.
Fair enough, but if motivation is what defines an act, are there any evil creatures other than planar ones and some chaotic evil?
Is it neutral to have an entire city razed to the ground and every man, woman and child inside executed if it is done to prevent a demon cult from spreading? Is it still neutral if there was only a single cultist found?
Motivation isn't what decides what an action is. It's part of it, but a very, very small part.
Wow, you are really jumping to conclusions here.
The medusa is a threat to society (the monk's society)she is both a dangerous monster with dangerous tendencies and is a tool of the enemy used to generate more monsters. Her death is for the greater good of society. A lawful view, but not a good view. The monks is not interested in redeeming the medusa, just eliminating the threat, killing her is just the most efficient way to do that...nothing personal.
You made the fact that she was giving birth to dangerous monsters part of the equation. If that's worth of death, it goes beyond her.
Are Medusa's dangerous? Yes.
Are Medusa's always evil? Not in this GM's world.
Was this Medusa a threat? She was begging for mercy and didn't try to use her best defence once, so you can't say that she was a clear and present danger.
Was she in need of redemption? Well, she wasn't unleashing her gaze on the group, and there was no indication that she was evil. Do you need to redeem neutral creatures?
A lawful good paladin on the other hand may have to think twice about outright destruction of the medusa. If he could take the extra step to exile her or disable her threat without killing her he would. The lawful neutral monk see the extra step as a wasteful gamble and will go for the most logical solution.
A lawful evil fighter would kill the medusa simply because she is in the way of his plans or could be a threat. If he could find a way to use her, he would spare her life for now.
The Medusa was already basically disabled. The monk attacked because he was angry, not to protect anyone or anything. That was made clear already.
Wouldn't the most logical solution, when faced with a creature that is known for turning things to stone, that has been beaten and abused by others, and is screaming for mercy and NOT trying to turn anyone to stone, be to take a moment to try and find out WHY she isn't trying to turn people to stone?
Lawful Neutral means following the law. All creatures are equal in the eyes of the law and this creature, was restraining itself when it could probably petrify some of them and escape. What crime had she committed other than being a Medusa that deserved execution, especially when she was showing more self-control than the lawful neutral monk? Attacking her because of her race is Evil. It's in the definition of Lawful Evil.
Medusa kill with a Look. theres' more than skin color and 'ugly' going on there.
Unless done out of malice, I'm pretty sure that a medusa's gaze isn't evil in and of itself. It's not her fault that she's a medusa and she has a gaze attack.
-Kurocyn