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
I don't know... it seems that some people are arguing that Killing is always Evil...
Stone gaze = killing
killing = Evil....
Stone Gaze = Killing.
Unless she's NEVER looked at anyone in her life... then she's a killer.
Regardless, she IS a threat to the party... and if the best arguement is that in the first 6-12 seconds she didn't try to kill the party... Then I'm not sure I'd assume she was 'good'
Now... If I knew they were holding prisoners for their rape/breeding program, and the mission had been to rescue them... and one turned out to be a medusa... It may have been a different situation.
But if I walk into a room with 12 monsters... and ONE of the monsters MAY be good... That's a recipe for collateral damage...
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.
Exactly who's LAW is the monk following?
Lawful Neutral is all about Order and self discipline.
While a lawful neutral will follow local laws there is nothing to say that the local laws don't say that all medusa must die.
What the monk is guilty of is loosing self control and giving in to mindless rage. That is a chaotic act not an evil one. The act had deadly consequences for the medusa.
As a GM I would give the monk a warning that his character feels his self control slipping and that he should work on his dicipline if he does not want a shift towards Chaotic.
When his turn came around again, he announced that he was having second thoughts. He decided to leave his next action to a d6: 1-3, he continues the attack, 4-6 he lets her go. He rolled high and showed mercy. By then the medusa no longer trusted him anyway, though, and stumbled out a side door...
Now THAT was an alignment breach for a Lawful character! :D
Yes, killing her would be an evil act under those specific circumstances - she was helpless, unable to harm him, and begging for her life. Certainly his reasons for attacking on a whim are chaotic (if he had responded with: "she's one of the enemy, regardless," then I'd call it lawful if merciless).
You're all missing the fact that she's an evil monster who may go on to do heinous crimes (even against the party itself).
Yes, but in the Golarian cosmology, killing evil does not stop it - it just becomes evil in another form. You have to redeem evil creatures to win the war of good vs evil. This is why it is so damn tough being a paladin.
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.
Coming up with a scenario for a good medusa is really not that hard.
First off, let's start with the good medusa's mom, a bog-standard LE medusa who decided to go the "mysterious crime boss" route. She runs the local mob, and the underlings don't think it's odd that the boss always stays masked and hidden, since it's assumed she's some high ranking noble or something who wants to protect her identity. People she wants to disappear are petrified, then crushed up for limestone and used in her sideline cement manufacturing business. Vinnie the Squealer? He isn't buried in cement. He is the cement.
Anyway, somewhere along the line this LE medusa crime boss decides she wants some sex and does so with some comely evil nobleman who wanted to meet the crime boss and was willing to do the "masked and blindfolded" kink she demanded. She didn't kill him--he was a useful and evil business partner--but she did get pregnant.
So mom has her daughter, who is another medusa, but a baby and then little girl and finally young lady medusa who mom has raised up Rapunzel style in a secluded villa, and being a mob boss, giving her the best of everything--pretty clothes, nice picture books and romantic ballads, and finally, when she's old enough to probably be wanting sex, goes to the market and find a comely young blind slaveboy to be her daughter's companion, fixes him up with a periapt of proof against poison in case of accidental snake-hair nipping, and takes him home for her daughter.
Daughter and her boy toy get on famously, and a couple years later, the LE medusa is in town doing mob business and is killed by adventurers who never find out about the mob boss's secluded hideaway in the hills.
The daughter is worried about mom, but mom said she was always having business trips, so she stays at the villa, and one thing leading to another, soon enough there's a villa crawling with little baby medusas, LG mommy medusa, and her happy blind husband. The villa is also a working farm, and they teach the girls to put on their masks so they don't turn the goats and chickens to stone, because otherwise there won't be any milk or eggs.
Then one day there's an accident, hubby or one of the children is badly injured, and the LG medusa has to put on her mask, get on her donkey, and go off in search of a healer.
This is the woman your supposedly non-evil adventurers feel justified in killing out of hand? Yeah, right.
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.
Coming up with a scenario for a good medusa is really not that hard.
First off, let's start with the good medusa's mom, a bog-standard LE medusa who decided to go the "mysterious crime boss" route. She runs the local mob, and the underlings don't think it's odd that the boss always stays masked and hidden, since it's assumed she's some high ranking noble or something who wants to protect her identity. People she wants to disappear are petrified, then crushed up for limestone and used in her sideline cement manufacturing business. Vinnie the Squealer? He isn't buried in cement. He is the cement.
Anyway, somewhere along the line this LE medusa crime boss decides she wants some sex and does so with some comely evil nobleman who wanted to meet the crime boss and was willing to do the "masked and blindfolded" kink she demanded. She didn't kill him--he was a useful and evil business partner--but she did get pregnant.
So mom has her daughter, who is another medusa, but a baby and then little girl and finally young lady medusa who mom has raised up Rapunzel style in a secluded villa, and being a mob boss, giving her the best of everything--pretty clothes, nice picture books and romantic ballads, and finally, when she's old enough to probably be wanting sex, goes to the market and find a comely young blind slaveboy to be her daughter's companion, fixes him up with a periapt of proof against poison in case of accidental snake-hair nipping, and takes him home for her daughter.
Daughter and her boy toy get on famously, and a couple years later, the LE medusa is in town doing mob business and is killed by adventurers who never find out about the mob boss's secluded hideaway in the hills.
The daughter is worried about mom, but mom said she was always having business trips, so she stays at the villa, and one thing leading to another, soon enough there's a villa crawling with little baby medusas, LG mommy medusa, and her happy blind husband. The villa is also a working farm, and they teach the girls to put on their masks so they don't turn the goats and chickens to stone, because otherwise there won't be any milk or eggs.
Then one day there's an accident, hubby or one of the children is badly injured, and the LG medusa has to put on her mask, get on her donkey, and go off in search of a healer.
This is the woman your supposedly non-evil adventurers feel justified in killing out of hand? Yeah, right.
You mean not all things are like narrow preconceptions leads people to believe!? Are there non-Nazi Germans? Scandinavians without beards? Hard-working fat people? Blacks that don't steal? Asians bad at math? Peaceful Muslims? Educated southerners?! Girls on the internet!?! OH MY GOOO~OOD!
But on a serious note: Agreed. Monsters can come in all kinds, and killing, or even assaulting, someone based on what they are, is an evil act. (Except for creatures whose very existence is evil, like fiends and 99% of the undead)
And I say again; if the potential for murder = evil, all PCs are evil. Nothing more deadly than a group of player characters. A medusa can turn people to stone by merely looking at them. That is a rather easily reversible state (mid level cost-effective spell, or an application of Stone Salve). A PC wizard can incinerate an orphanage by speaking a phrase.
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...
I don't think the law has applies in this case. Since when are monstrous evil creatures governed by civilized cultures laws? I would say if the law says anything about this situation it would support his action to kill this potential harmful threat to the region.
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.
Great than you also know those alignments are not written in stone.
Also I'll bring another fact is that if the monk felt threatened by medusa...why did he not strike for subdual damage? If she was knocked out she is not a threat to any one.
That really depends on whether or not our laws considered medusae to be people. Considering the fact that they turn people to stone, I seriously doubt they would be; in our society, they'd have been extinct centuries ago because our ancestors would have posted a bounty for medusa heads.
Example: There are a THOUSAND+ ways my human character could visciously and horribly murder your character. How am I any less a monster than a medusae? Medusae are intelligent, sentient beings just like us. How is it they do not deserve the same mercy and compassion?
IMHO Humans are far worse than most creatures in the Bestiary.
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.
Yay, she must turn around and attack even if it makes no sense… Seriously, she's actively avoiding hitting them with her gaze. She's severely injured and she knows it, if she does try to petrify them she'd better get them all in one shot or she's dead. (No one ever makes a saving throw in Pathfinder?) If she does wipe them out that doesn't ensure her safety, in her condition all it takes is being surprised by one random hostile creature to wind up dead.
Her best chance at survival was having the group accept her surrender, as an intelligent being she probably knew this and she was not taking any hostile action. But evil is stupid and doesn't care about self preservation, right?
I think the main issue here is "Is evil evil when it's done to someone evil?"
|
Relieving a creature of its mortal life in a world were the dead can be brought back and the Gods are real and the afterlife is a well known fact might not be good but it is certainly not evil (especially a creature that would be considered a monster in the eyes of civilized races). All creatures bow before Pharasma in the end and meet their final judgment there in her realm.
Arnaud Amaury: "Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His."
Decidedly a step toward chaotic for a monk. Not enough for a alignment shift but noticeable.
The "I will decide with a coin toss", even if done by the player and not the character, show that he has not taken a rational decision even showing mercy, but gone for a emotional, spur of the moment, decision, so again chaotic and even more prominently that the first violation.
I would give some warning to the player saying that the character feel that his mental discipline is wavering.
On the good/evil axis, seeing how the guy is neutral, it is a very small step toward evil. Something that can be washed away simply by keeping a neutral stance in most situation, no need to do something actively good.
His later decision to show mercy is enough to balance the evil act, even if it was chaotic.
I think the main issue here is "Is evil evil when it's done to someone evil?"
It is still evil if the only reason you do it is because they are evil. If you commit the act to stop an evil act that you know is coming from taking place that is different.
I think that has been mentioned before. :)
You are right, I forgot about that. It goes beyond murder, though - killing is just one specific instance. It might be "is beating up your drow classmate for his lunch money evil?"
Threads like these always make me feel I did the right thing by dropping alignment from my game.
I am very happy I have it in my game, by contrast. Games where players are just allowed to let out their inner wanker-ness are not something I want to GM.
I don't think the law has applies in this case. Since when are monstrous evil creatures governed by civilized cultures laws? I would say if the law says anything about this situation it would support his action to kill this potential harmful threat to the region.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...
Since when are monstrous evil creatures not governed by civilized cultures' laws? I'd say every paladin on the planet is going to be pointing to the laws of their church and of all the states who back their church up declaring all the undead anathema to be struck down on sight and moreover claiming this is the law.
With creatures like medusae who are not only born of human stock, but are intelligent and not locked into any given alignment, how is a lawful society with any pretensions to being good able to go around saying that all medusae are to be put to the sword on sight but centaurs are fine, and the stories about them getting drunk and raping human women are just racists lies, and half-orcs can be citizens but orcs can't? Apart from the obvious choice of the supposedly "lawful good" society actually being filled with flaming hypocrites?
Who and what you declare a person is very much a benchmark of having a good and enlightened society. I mean, we could go with a medieval European worldview and declare that all medusae were non-people by dint of them all being female, and women can't own property, and almost half of the priests say they don't have souls either. Moreover, if the adventurers kill the villa full of medusae, they can then liberate the plunder, and free the old blind slave, and ignore his screams about them murdering his wife and daughters.
Of course, in a lawful society, if women are property--and medusae are all female--I'd say the blind man would have a very good case in a court of law against the adventurers. I mean, if women are chattel, it shouldn't matter whether they're medusae or not, should it? That's what a sensible lawyer would be arguing. And living peacefully at a secluded villa raising goats and chickens is hardly anything monstrous. Yes, the snaky hair is pretty weird, but they always covered that with a wimple when they went in public, so as to not frighten the horses, and speaking of horses, here's the centaur trader who's here as a character witness to back up the blind man's story that his wife and daughters acted no different than any innocent farmwife and her daughters.
The centaur, being a human male at least from the waist up, may be viewed as a credible witness by the jury on that basis. Of course a centaur, being half man, may only get half a vote by the laws of the kingdom, but that's another issue.
It should also be noted that in a civilized society, being recognized as a person means you can be taxed. If the king recognizes centaurs as people, even if just as second class citizens, he'll have an easier time collecting taxes from them, and enforcing other laws. Saying "Our human laws don't apply to centaurs" mean that you've just created a huge loophole in your taxes and tariffs which any smart centaur merchant will immediately exploit.
I see that lots of the post here are stating that the medusa was raped. No where in the description is that stated. All that is said is she was chained and masked. Being masked makes sense, giving birth she would be looking all around.
Basically we don't know that she was forced to have this child. She could have been a willing participant. Also its good to note that this took place in a prison.
Forced to breed and chained=sounds like rape to me.
I don't think there is another way to force someone to breed other than to force them to have sex which goes back to rape.You will also notice that the OP cleared up several things as the post went on, but he never denied the rape charge.
Basically we don't know that she was forced to have this child. She could have been a willing participant. Also its good to note that this took place in a prison.
Sorry, but ask this: if it was a human woman chained up, what would you assume? You may not be right, but what's the most likely case? Yep, that they are a prisoner, are being 'bred' and if they are not a willing participant in the birth process it's not unlikely that the start of the gestational proceedings were likewise as involuntary. They may be a prisoner in the prison for a crime, true, but I doubt the penal code included enforced breeding.
|
Games where players are just allowed to let out their inner wanker-ness are not something I want to GM.
But isn't that completely independent of alignment being a part of the game? Alignment-less or not, it still falls on the other players to enforce the 'no wankers' rule. I don't allow it in my 'no alignment' game either.
Not giving mercy is not necessarily evil. Mercy is something you can ask for, but you can't demand it.
Most likely, a good person would give a short warning that "Sorry, not going to happen. Defend yourself."
Now, if they accept her surrender, blindfold and chain her up, and THEN lop off her head...
Hehe, laws. I had a few "lolwut" moments with my party in Kingmaker when they claimed slaughtering an insane man was a "lawful" thing to do, and not "evil" when the priestess of Sarenrae cried foul and wanted to fix him and give him a chance to redeem himself.
As if "lawful" counters the good/evil axis. They exist in two separate directions. An action can be lawful AND neutral, like stopping to do the tedious paperwork revolved around registering as an adventuring party at any given city they enter. That is an action that has no effect either way on the scale.
Giving to a well run and honest charity that will distribute wealth fairly, instead of just tossing coin to beggars is a lawful and good act.
Filing a 1000gp lawsuit against a blind beggar for assault when he bumps into you and jabs you for 1 subdual damage with his cup as he tries to catch himself when falling is an example of an action that is lawful and EVIL.
Alignment should also hold no matter the situation. Monster or man. Which leads me to my next rant, about killing people based on situation.
My lv14 players seem to think that it is OK to kill neutral lv1 soldiers (that cannot POSSIBLY present a threat to them) of an enemy kingdom by the truckload just because they are soldiers, and get all whiny when I call evil on it. Even when:
- They know the ruler is a psycho that throws people into harms way for vanity.
- They have large scale fear/charm/hold spells that will incapacitate them humanely PREPARED.
- They know the enemy forcefully drafts innocent people into the army.
- They can easily slay the monstrous commanders, and they know the foot-soldiers will scatter when not pushed ahead.
They DID try to liberate the charmed mammoths by dispelling the charms, and avoided hurting them at all costs. Because there was a quest involved in that. Amusing how a few beasts get treated like victims, but people don't.
Nope "it's war, lol, killing in war is OK!". They will likely be surprised when the people will cry for the leadership of someone else when they dethrone the enemy dictator. "Yeah, we appreciate the liberation, but we all know you PERSONALLY flew around gleefully casting cloudkills, blade barriers and other large scale damage spells at our familiy members that were forced to the front line."
Most likely, a good person would give a short warning that "Sorry, not going to happen. Defend yourself."
Honorable. Which is not inherently good. Many "honorable" codes call for outright evil things (like honor killings of female family members who bring shame to the family by having been raped), while some are more virtuous and goodly.
In the old Oriental Adventures book for 3e D&D, you had different perspectives on Bushido that decided your alignment. Some followed it to the spirit, (LG) where every act is deserving of reflection, and you behave like it calls for because it is the right thing to do. Live it by the heart, (LN) and you accept the wisdom, and do not question it. It is not your place to consider the hows and whys. Then you have those who follow it like a law prone to be exploited, (LE) where you abuse the privileges, kill people who slight you, and weasel out of things that doesn't sit well with you.
I'd say that is more lawful. And something the monk should have done instead of randomly starting wailing on her.
Basically we don't know that she was forced to have this child. She could have been a willing participant. Also its good to note that this took place in a prison.Sorry, but ask this: if it was a human woman chained up, what would you assume?...
If the human woman had venomous snakes for hair and gaze that could turn you to stone, then its shoot first, ask questions later.
If she was innocent, well its just collateral damage, we can cry later. Thats a neutral stance. neither good nor evil.
|
|
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 7LE Medium monstrous humanoid
Source: PFSRD ;)
PFSRD:
Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. 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. 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.
If you read the whole quote even Evil outsiders can have a non evil alignment.
If she was innocent, well its just collateral damage, we can cry later. Thats a neutral stance. neither good nor evil.
So it is not evil to toss fireballs when fighting on a busy street? After all, the commoners going grocery shopping MIGHT be a threat. For all you know, they are all 20th level Rogue/Assassins come for you.
Just like "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder". You've been to war and seen shit human brains aren't supposed to deal with; and we call it a "stress disorder". Give us back "Shell Shock", it is concise, it strikes hard, it has SHOCK instead of STRESS, and implies you were nearly blown to bits. F*#&ing PTSD sounds like something you can get from being out of money at the register at Walmart, or something you could get from playing too many violent video-games. "Oh, my son has PTSD from playing too much Call of Duty! He got so stressed when some n00bs kept spawn-camping and spamming grenades."
Regarding second paragraph - have you heard about wine and/or charm person?Also rape.
Wine is iffy, especially if you both drink. Sure, it lowers inhibitions somewhat, but I'd say calling it a rape just because you both had a glass or two and she wasn't feeling too picky is a bit much. Charm spells, though... not cool. Not quite as bad as dominate, sure, but still nasty - the kind of thing that can get you in serious trouble, especially in some locales. Plus, it's not like a spellcaster couldn't use those spell slots to earn some cash and spend it at the nearest brothel fair and square.
You're using metagaming knowledge here.
Regarding second paragraph - have you heard about wine and/or charm person?
No more so than the people stating they "know" the medusa is evil.
"It's in the bestiary!"
My reply, "The what? That doesn't exist in Galoria."
Personally, I'm loving how so many people seem to be confusing "chaotic" with "evil." It's like I'm reading the Basic D&D set all over again.
I get a lot of mandatory training on prevention of sexual harassment. Alcohol rendering legal consent impossible is pretty well pounded on in those classes.
Here's my thing.
If I get drunk and go out driving and hit/kill someone while doing so it's drunk driving and I should be in jail.
If A woman goes out gets drunk and has sex with a guy she can claim rape in the morning because she wasn't able to give consent.
I say if I'm responsible for what I do while I'm drunk so is the woman.
Personally, I'm loving how so many people seem to be confusing "chaotic" with "evil." It's like I'm reading the Basic D&D set all over again.
I maintain it was both chaotic and evil due to the reasons I gave at the beginning of this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You will also notice that the OP cleared up several things as the post went on, but he never denied the rape charge.
That's right. Either he forcefully raped her or she irrationally let him have his way with her due to Stockholm Syndrome. Either way she was his victim, and he was abusive.
Whether or not this particular medusa was evil prior to her imprisonment is immaterial as far as I'm concerned. Her original imprisonment may or may not have been justified, but it did not include being left to the beast. That happened when everything went to hell after the disease he was carrying spread throughout the prison. Guards mutated into sadistic monsters and prisoners escaped their individual cells and formed gangs. To the mighty went the spoils. The medusa was a prize. My point is, in this situation I saw her as a victim, regardless of her past.
I didn't delve deeply enough into her backstory to know her original crime, if any. If the monk had taken mercy on her and they asked for her history, I would like to think that I would have been creative enough to come up with something like, oh I dunno, like she was a headmistress at a school for the blind or something (brilliant, that!), but chances are I wouldn't have been so quick.
I get a lot of mandatory training on prevention of sexual harassment. Alcohol rendering legal consent impossible is pretty well pounded on in those classes.
That depends on the kind of society one is in, though. Today we view the issues of consent and relationships in a certain way, but that isn't necessarily how they were perceived at other times. Fantasy settings include the kind of places where dueling, slavery, or worse are legal and accepted. Not to mention my opinion of the idea that if both of you had had a drink or two, both could claim not giving consent... It sounds like a race to the bottom for being a humongous ******.
Morality-wise, I'd consider it a matter of degree. If someone had planned it, gotten their partner roaring-drunk to the point where they couldn't even resist or spiked their drink, it would be a no-no. If it was just a glass or two, it could work - not the best example of straight and narrow, but not a huge problem either. Of course, it could backfire and the wannabe-Casanova could be in for a nasty realization in the morning when they wake up next to a rather imperfect beauty. The spirit of the law is that both should agree to having a relationship - whether one of them is a monstrous humanoid or not :) .
If she was innocent, well its just collateral damage, we can cry later. Thats a neutral stance. neither good nor evil.So it is not evil to toss fireballs when fighting on a busy street? After all, the commoners going grocery shopping MIGHT be a threat. For all you know, they are all 20th level Rogue/Assassins come for you.
** spoiler omitted **
"Innocents? All I see are enemies and collaberators."
Besides if you are going to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.
The commoners may be acceptable losses if the target of the fireball is high value enough. It's how wars are won.
I say if I'm responsible for what I do while I'm drunk so is the woman.You're also responsible for what you do with a drunk woman. And what you do with the alcohol before she drinks it.
This should run both ways, though. Unlike, say, physical strength, alcohol tolerance is not necessarily an issue where either gender has an advantage. There can be abuses on either's part.
Although I can't help but feel amused by the idea of a couple waking up together, seeing each other, and both starting to say "I am very, very disappointed in you."
|
|
This should run both ways, though. Unlike, say, physical strength, alcohol tolerance is not necessarily an issue where either gender has an advantage. There can be abuses on either's part.Although I can't help but feel amused by the idea of a couple waking up together, seeing each other, and both starting to say "I am very, very disappointed in you."
It does run both ways. It's just as wrong for a woman to slip a man a roofie and rape him.
I'm not catching the idea, but I can agree with the humor. ^_^
|
My point is, in this situation I saw her as a victim, regardless of her past.
This raises an interesting question - is how you as a DM saw the creature the determinate factor in whether an act is evil, or is how the PC's saw the creature more important?
In your world does being good require adherence to a set of values (deontological) or is it the consequences of a PC's actions that determine whether an action was good or evil (teleological). Or both?
|
|
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.
A medusa is an evil creature.
I'm in a dungeon, the child of the medusa just petrified me.
If I'm in a room where the child of the dragon just hit me with a breath weapon, I'm assuming they aren't friendly.
I say if I'm responsible for what I do while I'm drunk so is the woman.You're also responsible for what you do with a drunk woman. And what you do with the alcohol before she drinks it.
Isn't that like saying that the sober driver is responsible for the accident because the drunk one was too impaired to not drive into him?
Sure if one party is unconscious or unresponsive then it is a crime. If the one or both parties are intoxicated but consentual, there is no crime. They may regret the decesion later, but no crime committed.
In the real world there are no chemicals that make you behave in a way that you do not want to. They may lower inhibitions and let you do things you would have considered unwise if sober.
In a fantasy world where spells like command or suggestion can be used there may be a few exceptions.
This should run both ways, though. Unlike, say, physical strength, alcohol tolerance is not necessarily an issue where either gender has an advantage.I say if I'm responsible for what I do while I'm drunk so is the woman.You're also responsible for what you do with a drunk woman. And what you do with the alcohol before she drinks it.
Actually men do have a higher enzyme count for the specific enzyme that the body uses to break down alcohol, and have a slight (but measurable) higher rate of recovery because of this. There are a few other factors that are involved that also help men handle their alcohol better, but the basic point, that a drunk person is responsible for their behavior stands.
**********************************
@TOZ (got it right this time)
I'm not talking about spiking their drink -- I agree that is rape through and through since you are lying by omission about what is in the drink, and rendering her unconscious.
However simply getting drunk is should not be a means to automatically call rape if you don't like who you do while drunk.
And if the guy is buying you drinks? Tell him no -- Simple lesson learned in school these days, "Say NO to peer pressure."
|
|
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.
Yay, she must turn around and attack even if it makes no sense… Seriously, she's actively avoiding hitting them with her gaze. She's severely injured and she knows it, if she does try to petrify them she'd better get them all in one shot or she's dead. (No one ever makes a saving throw in Pathfinder?) If she does wipe them out that doesn't ensure her safety, in her condition all it takes is being surprised by one random hostile creature to wind up dead.
Her best chance at survival was having the group accept her surrender, as an intelligent being she probably knew this and she was not taking any hostile action. But evil is stupid and doesn't care about self preservation, right?
And all of this is based on the assumption that this medusa isn't evil, despite her child just trying to kill you and her being the apparent mate of the BBEG you came to kill.
I both play and DM. As DM I know everything that is going on, as a player I don't. Players often do things they think are good that turn out to have horrible consequences. It doesn't make them evil, or the act evil.
It is perfectly reasonable to think the Medusa is an enemy, it is logical to assume she is evil. If you add the fact that you were just hit by a gaze attack from her child, it is perfectly reasonable to perceive her as a threat.
Just because, as a DM, you have some convoluted backstory that made a creature that is normally evil good and your players didn't recognize the fact that you made a medusa with a heart of gold...maybe that isn't the players fault.
Or, maybe lawful neutral people understand evil is, well, evil. And so for the greater good of society you kill evil even when it begs for mercy, because it is evil. Because you aren't a good character. You are neutral.
This is why they had to kill Old Yeller.
In my opinion, if your defense of the neutrality of an action are the stock lines in movies used to indicate that the "good guys" are bad guys in disguise, you might want to rethink your position (at least from a genre-sense)."Innocents? All I see are enemies and collaberators."
Besides if you are going to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.
The winners are always good guys.
Thats because they get to write the history from their point of view.I'm just pointing out that given the super strict interpretation of good & evil that some folks have on this board, anytime the adventurers fight or kill ANYTHING then they interpret it as an act of evil (Oh, noes! they just murdered that orc/dragon/vampire/demon before it got a chance to prove if it was evil or not!)
It's getting rather silly.
|
|
@TOZ (got it right this time)I'm not talking about spiking their drink -- I agree that is rape through and through since you are lying by omission about what is in the drink, and rendering her unconscious.
However simply getting drunk is should not be a means to automatically call rape if you don't like who you do while drunk.
And if the guy is buying you drinks? Tell him no -- Simple lesson learned in school these days, "Say NO to peer pressure."
I agree that one drink isn't enough to claim rape. However, the training they put us through strongly recommends not engaging in intercourse when alcohol is present to avoid the situation completely.
In the real world there are no chemicals that make you behave in a way that you do not want to. They may lower inhibitions and let you do things you would have considered unwise if sober.
Um...psychoactive drugs?
|
|
I say if I'm responsible for what I do while I'm drunk so is the woman.You're also responsible for what you do with a drunk woman. And what you do with the alcohol before she drinks it.Isn't that like saying that the sober driver is responsible for the accident because the drunk one was too impaired to not drive into him?
Sure if one party is unconscious or unresponsive then it is a crime. If the one or both parties are intoxicated but consentual, there is no crime. They may regret the decesion later, but no crime committed.
In the real world there are no chemicals that make you behave in a way that you do not want to. They may lower inhibitions and let you do things you would have considered unwise if sober.
In a fantasy world where spells like command or suggestion can be used there may be a few exceptions.
You are fundimentally wrong, and in most states if you took advantage of someone under the influence of alcohol you would be guilty of rape by statute.
It's not even really a gray area. In my state even if you are drunk you are guilty of rape by statute for taking advantage of someone in an impaired state as they are unable to consent.
Seriously, if you have to get a girl drunk to sleep with you, or a girl wouldn't sleep with you sober so you get her drunk, what do you think you are doing other than trying to trick someone into doing something they don't want to do.
In the real world there are no chemicals that make you behave in a way that you do not want to. They may lower inhibitions and let you do things you would have considered unwise if sober.Um...psychoactive drugs?
Psychoactives will make you delusional and halucinate, but will not make you do things that your inner personality did not want to do.
Some narcotics can disable you so that you can't put up resistance (unconscious or unable to coordinate muscles) which falls into a different category.
Hallucinagenics twist your perceptions so that you percieve things that are not there or suffer sensory synergy (being able to taste colors for instance).