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.
How is that anything but what we are talking about? There are chemicals that make you behave in ways that you normally would not -- we know them as "drugs".
|
Psychoactives will make you delusional and halucinate, but will not make you do things that your inner personality did not want to do.
I think that is a difficult to prove statement that could be argued either way. Determining what someone actually wants to do is near impossible from outside. Does a drug addicted prostitute really want to sell her body for her fixes or has her mind been fundamentally changed by the substance she is addicted to?
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.How is that anything but what we are talking about? There are chemicals that make you behave in ways that you normally would not -- we know them as "drugs".
Drugs (like alcohol) lower inhibitions, but they can never make you do something that you don't want to do.
Ask any psychologist, drugs may expose inner desires that the user would rather keep buried, but they can never be used as an excuse for actions. Thats why it is an ineffective defense in court.
Being intoxicated does not make one innocent of the actions they take.
I think that is a difficult to prove statement that could be argued either way. Determining what someone actually wants to do is near impossible from outside. Does a drug addicted prostitute really want to sell her body for her fixes or has her mind been fundamentally changed by the substance she is addicted to?
Psychoactives will make you delusional and halucinate, but will not make you do things that your inner personality did not want to do.
She has a choice to be or not to be a prostitute. Not to be is a much harder road but the choice is still hers to make and the consequences are hers to bear.
No murderer has ever gotten off on the defense that the drugs made me do it, nor should they.
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?
I like your questions! I think how the PCs saw the creature is more important. The GM has "godlike" intelligence about the situation that neither the players nor their characters enjoy. They should be judged based on their actions within the context of their knowledge and understanding of the situation.
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?
In judging the actions of the PCs, I lean toward deontological, but I like to have it both ways. Actions with the best intentions can have disastrously evil consequences. To the extent that these consequences could be foreseen or that the PCs could understand the risks, they should be accountable for these results.
Of course, this brings up the age-old collision between player INT vs. character INT. If a 9 INT player doesn't foresee the (let's assume obvious) results of his 18 INT character's actions, does the GM hold him accountable? That's probably another thread, though...
Of course, this brings up the age-old collision between player INT vs. character INT. If a 9 INT player doesn't foresee the (let's assume obvious) results of his 18 INT character's actions, does the GM hold him accountable? That's probably another thread, though...
This actually brings up a point I try not to get into too much. But I really hate the 'If you knew anything about 1400's legal outlooks, you wouldn't argue that. You're using modern ideas of right and wrong'.
You know what? I really don't have a problem with that. Nothing in PF or D&D is really 1400's. And the whole 'modern right and wrong vs darkages right and wrong' is a BS argument. Unless everyone at the table has a degree in history focusing on the 1400's, nobody at the table knows it.
Modern ideas of right and wrong should be the norm, not the exception. It's much easier for Pattie the Programmer, Larry the Lawyer, Susan the Salesclerk and Mikey the Mechanic to comprehend and follow modern ideas of good vs evil and lawful vs chaotic (especially as espoused in modern sci fi and fantasy) than it is for them to understand the concepts of 1400's good vs evil and law vs chaos. Especially since the 1400's variety usually devolved down to 'I beat your head in with a club and tell everyone you were evil and I am good and nobody can argue because they are dead!'.
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.How is that anything but what we are talking about? There are chemicals that make you behave in ways that you normally would not -- we know them as "drugs".Drugs (like alcohol) lower inhibitions, but they can never make you do something that you don't want to do.
Ask any psychologist, drugs may expose inner desires that the user would rather keep buried, but they can never be used as an excuse for actions. Thats why it is an ineffective defense in court.
Being intoxicated does not make one innocent of the actions they take.
Actually I call bull. As I am currently taking prescriptions that allow me to do what I normally can't do. To be clear -- without my medication I couldn't function properly. As such the drugs clearly make me able to do what I normally could not do at all.
Drugs may expose inner desires -- but they can also cause actions that would not be taken. Addiction forces behavior, psychoactive addictions force behavior due to the brain's dependence on the action of the drug.
Many drugs are known for causing emotions on their own, and actions that normally would not be taken at all.
This also doesn't even get into hallucinogens which cause false stimulus and reactions.
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?I like your questions! I think how the PCs saw the creature is more important. The GM has "godlike" intelligence about the situation that neither the players nor their characters enjoy. They should be judged based on their actions within the context of their knowledge and understanding of the situation.
This is something I, as a player don't like.
Something that makes pefect sense to you, may not make anysense to your plyers.
I mean, just takee the infamous gazeebo event.
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...
I love forums. You wrote half a book on the moral and/or ethical implications of killing a medusa. There are pleny of civilized societies that would kill an abomination like that on sight, it doesn't make them any less civilized. This is a game and you're making this issue much more complicated for the scope of a game my friend. That's my take on this situation. The bottom line is I wouldn't penalize the Monk too much for this, maybe a stern reprimand of some sort by whatever authority he reports to.
To the OP: War upon Evil without remittance or mercy is a valid interpretation of the NG alignment.
No Mercy doesn't mean you're not good...it means you're DAMN GOOD.
==Aelryinth
Threads like these always make me feel I did the right thing by dropping alignment from my game.
I find myself increasingly tempted. Then, at least, alignment arguments are something that the PCs can have in-character without my having to offer my input one way or another.
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.
The thing is, the horrible things the BBEG did to her don't have anything to do with the party. They meet a normally Evil creature in a prison, after having been attacked by the other denizens of that prison. Whatever horrible things that the BBEG has done to her do not change whatever horrible things she has done to others-- being a victim does not make you Good, or innocent, or anything else.
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.
So... this one "victim" in the prison is the only one immune to the disease that turned everyone else into monsters? And the players were just supposed to know this?
This is why I play Evil characters, so that I can go out and do what's right for me and my comrades without the DM playing "gotcha" and second-guessing every single decision I make.
Of course, saying that, next game I get into I'm going to have the DM penalize my character for not being a psychopath and backstabbing my allies at the first opportune moment-- no matter how little I stand to gain from it.
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...
No? It's based on she's seriously injured and she wants to survive, neither of which require her to be good or neutral. It was in her best interest to get them to accept her surrender no matter what her alignment was.
Let's be clear on what I've been saying, would granting her mercy be the right thing to do? Not necessarily. Kill her without thinking? No. The right thing was for the group to stop for a moment to decide what to do. Frankly there's a lot of information we don't have and we don't know what the players did know. And granting or denying mercy should be a group decision, not just one player's decision.
Actually I call bull. As I am currently taking prescriptions that allow me to do what I normally can't do. To be clear -- without my medication I couldn't function properly. As such the drugs clearly make me able to do what I normally could not do at all.Drugs may expose inner desires -- but they can also cause actions that would not be taken. Addiction forces behavior, psychoactive addictions force behavior due to the brain's dependence on the action of the drug.
Many drugs are known for causing emotions on their own, and actions that normally would not be taken at all.
This also doesn't even get into hallucinogens which cause false stimulus and reactions.
Depression is mainly the major thing affected by drugs (depressants and anti-depressants), though some drugs can produce a euphoria response. While drugs may alter mood using mao inhibitors and stimulators to block or stimulate neurotransmitters it cant force behavior. It may make you more prone to some behaviors such a suicide due to mood alteration.
It can't make someone submit to a physical relationship willingly unless that person was more receptive to that action either consciously or sub-consciously.
Addiction is often used as an excuse for bad behavior by people with a co-dependant personality (ie. "You know I love you, I only hit you because of my addiction").
Physical addiction can be overcome by going cold turkey or with a step down method if the withdrawal symptoms are too dangerous. Once beaten, physical addiction is over and done.
The real problem is psychological addiction which is a behavioral or thought disorder. Some psychiatrists give drugs to help offset that but it is often just trading one addiction for a more manageable one.
It can take a lifetime of therapy to keep the addiction at bay.
Addiction in itself can be a motivator but it does not control behavior. There is always free will and anyone claiming that the drugs or the addiction is responsible is lying to themselves and others.
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.You're using metagaming knowledge here.
Regarding second paragraph - have you heard about wine and/or charm person?*sigh*
Putting such threads into gaming forums is like handing matches to 3 year olds.
Regards,
Ruemere
I am not arguing from the point of someone in the game. I am arguing as a poster on the boards so I am not metagaming. At no point did any of us say were making the arguments as characters so of course I am going to go with what the OP is telling me.
PS:If any of you are trying to solve this from a PC point of view versus someone in the world raise your hand so Ruemere can debate with you.
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.
Correction:Some medusas are evil.
A breath attack is voluntary. A gaze attack by an infant is not.
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.
another correction:involuntary mate which equals victim not accomplice.
It was never stated that the child tried to kill anyone. It has an always on deadly ability, no different than if it had noxious fumes that covered a 30 foot area.
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.Does that make the also drunk man equally unable to concent so he is not at fault either or is this driven by gender bias?
I think when I was in the military the answer was yes, but the guy never complains about it. I would wonder what were to happen if they both tried to get each other charged though from a legal standpoint.
I love forums. You wrote half a book on the moral and/or ethical implications of killing a medusa. There are pleny of civilized societies that would kill an abomination like that on sight, it doesn't make them any less civilized. This is a game and you're making this issue much more complicated for the scope of a game my friend. That's my take on this situation. The bottom line is I wouldn't penalize the Monk too much for this, maybe a stern reprimand of some sort by whatever authority he reports to.
Sure it makes them less civilized. Tolerance is one of the benchmarks of civilization.
And "abomination"? Seriously? You realize that term has also been applied to certain sexual preferences not to mention a liking for shrimp cocktail and lobster thermidor?
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...
Back to the original issue.
A lawful Neutral can side with and work with good or evil for a time but must, above all else, remain lawful.
The above mentioned monk has no knowledge of the the events that led to the medusa's pregnancy.
The monk is in the wrong because he acted in a CHAOTIC manner.
He gave into blind rage and lashed out without thinking. Good or evil do not matter in this action as his alignment is neutral to 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.
Correction:Some medusas are evil.
A breath attack is voluntary. A gaze attack by an infant is not.
So if a newborn human infant involuntarily peed on the Wicked Witch of the West, and she started going "I'm melting! I'm melting!" how would that be any different from a baby medusa looking at a monk?
Similarly, if there were a convention of people with deadly peanut allergies, and Mr. Peanut walked into the room unaware of this, and people started dropping dead like he was a basilisk, what exactly should be done about the giant top-hatted and monocled sentient peanut? Is he an abomination sent by the gods?
Actually he might have not even been in a blind rage.
The order of events are Baby is born, baby petifies monk, several rounds later (since the BBB isn't there anymore) the monk is unpetrfied as the medusa begs for mercy.
for all we know, the monk could have been all combat stance.. petrified, gets unpetrified and continues with his last known action.
Truthfully unless he got unpetified and the situation is explained to him or something, not attacking would be metagaming.
We've had something similar in one of our games where we had a deaf alchemist who was particpating in a social encounter. The bandit the rest of the party was interrigating points at a tree to which the alchemist is like "THATS A TREE!" Our CN pyromancer sets the tree on fire with a ray, and in which the alchemist responsds by attacking the tree because it seemed the rest of the party needed to tree destroyed or something. Mind you, the alchemist is deaf, so he is trying to piece the contex clues together.
Unlike the monk who would have less that 6 seconds depending.
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.
Correction:Some medusas are evil.
A breath attack is voluntary. A gaze attack by an infant is not.So if a newborn human infant involuntarily peed on the Wicked Witch of the West, and she started going "I'm melting! I'm melting!" how would that be any different from a baby medusa looking at a monk?
Similarly, if there were a convention of people with deadly peanut allergies, and Mr. Peanut walked into the room unaware of this, and people started dropping dead like he was a basilisk, what exactly should be done about the giant top-hatted and monocled sentient peanut? Is he an abomination sent by the gods?
Ciretose said the gaze attack made him unfriendly. I don't think Mr.Peanut walking into a room qualifies him as unfriendly unless he is doing it to be mean.
In short being harmful does not equate to unfriendly. If I move a chair as you are about to sit down, not knowing that you are about to sit down that could be harmful, but not unfriendly because it is not intentional.PS:Were you intending to respond me or Ciretose who equates accidents with intentional harm.
Actually he might have not even been in a blind rage.
The order of events are Baby is born, baby petifies monk, several rounds later (since the BBB isn't there anymore) the monk is unpetrfied as the medusa begs for mercy.
for all we know, the monk could have been all combat stance.. petrified, gets unpetrified and continues with his last known action.
Truthfully unless he got unpetified and the situation is explained to him or something, not attacking would be metagaming.
We've had something similar in one of our games where we had a deaf alchemist who was particpating in a social encounter. The bandit the rest of the party was interrigating points at a tree to which the alchemist is like "THATS A TREE!" Our CN pyromancer sets the tree on fire with a ray, and in which the alchemist responsds by attacking the tree because it seemed the rest of the party needed to tree destroyed or something. Mind you, the alchemist is deaf, so he is trying to piece the contex clues together.
Unlike the monk who would have less that 6 seconds depending.
The OP described the scene as the monk being paralyzed when he looked at the baby, and then "deciding" to attack the medusa. He was not in mid-attack before he made his decision.
Yes because its only natural not to get ready to fight at all or be ready to charge into combat when you see the BBB.
The op described a scean of "Hey here is a BBB" fireball.. monk punches medusa. Leaving out parts such as.. How many rounds was it between unpretrifaction and the punching.
Now obviously I cannot speak for the monks player, but if my monk was petrifed at the start of combat and unpetrified at the end of combat just as a medusa begins to try to beg for mercy, I'd propally follow the same route.
Now if there is some time between my unpetrification and her begging and I don't immediatly notice her I probally wouldn't punch her.
Yes because its only natural not to get ready to fight at all or be ready to charge into combat when you see the BBB.
The op described a scean of "Hey here is a BBB" fireball.. monk punches medusa. Leaving out parts such as.. How many rounds was it between unpretrifaction and the punching.
Now obviously I cannot speak for the monks player, but if my monk was petrifed at the start of combat and unpetrified at the end of combat just as a medusa begins to try to beg for mercy, I'd propally follow the same route.
Now if there is some time between my unpetrification and her begging and I don't immediatly notice her I probally wouldn't punch her.
BBB? I am assuming you mean BBEG
The medusa was chained to a table and begging for mercy. That obviously makes her not a combatant, and the monk knew it was the baby the paralyzed him. I am assuming the fire spell killed the baby and then the monk was revived. If the medusa allows you(thr monk in this case) to get close enough to punch her without ever turning the gaze on you then it is not trying to fight back. Granted the monk could have rolled low, but if the baby just took you out of the game wouldn't it follow logic that it is harder to resist the medusa's gaze if it chose to unleash it as opposed to it begging for help.PS:It may not have been chained to a table, but it was chained, IIRC.
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.
It makes it easier for player to justify letting out the inner wanker without alignment restrictions. And easier for me as GM to remind them of what their character is supposed to behave like. At least that is how it works best for me. ^^
In either case it is possible that you may be overinterpreting things, as chaining down medusa could have been done to protect midwife. The breeding, even forced, could be interpreted as being forced into prearranged relationship, something exceedingly common in real modern world - it does not imply that subsequent union was forcibly consumed.
To those who equate application of alcohol with date rape - kindly remind your prospective partners not to invite you to romantic supper.
IMHO, the monk was forced into bad spot, highly stressed player had to make a decision and then a GM made a bad call.
Regards,
Ruemere
The best case scenario described by the OP was that she was a victim forced into the situation. He specifically caller her out as a prisoner. The OP/GM did not punish the player/character IIRC. It was highly stressful, but all it takes is a sense motive check to see if the medusa was trying to get over on the party, maybe trying to lure them in range for a gaze attack or what not. Of course since the monk attacked her he seemed to just want revenge. I am not saying high stress is not a factor in his actions, but it is not an excuse either.
|
|
It makes it easier for player to justify letting out the inner wanker without alignment restrictions. And easier for me as GM to remind them of what their character is supposed to behave like. At least that is how it works best for me. ^^
I find the statement 'there is no justification and continuing to try will get you kicked out' to be very easy. :P
I am not arguing from the point of someone in the game. I am arguing as a poster on the boards so I am not metagaming. At no point did any of us say were making the arguments as characters so of course I am going to go with what the OP is telling me.
PS:If any of you are trying to solve this from a PC point of view versus someone in the world raise your hand so Ruemere can debate with you.
/Raises hand!
All my debating has been from the characters point of view, and how it may have been justified in thier place.
Again, I walk into a room with 12 monsters, and one of them MAY not WANT to be there... I'm not going to stop and check motivations of every deadly thing in the room.
Here's a question... WHy didn't she FLEE?? If she was TRULY there against her will... the moment the minion/midwife dropped the chain she should have slithered for the door!
Also as a player... if everything in this prison was cursed to be a monster and attack us... WHY wasn't the medusa affected? Even if she was already a monster... the curse should have made her evil...er.
The moment monsters start cowering and begging for mercy it USUALLY means they've decided they can't win. You just killed every ally it had, and it wants to play you and escape... NOT that it was innocent...
Of course, I suppose it depeneded on what kind of 'begging' she was doing... if the dm rped it as "the medusa is cowering in the corner begging for mercy" or a more detailed 'She starts crying aloud while hiding her face, screaming "It's not my fault... Please don't hurt me... I wasn't a part of this..."
Also, I don't know THIS Dm... but Chains, masks, and bondage stuff seems to be a staple of 'monster sex' in the movies... Walking in on that scene MAY not immediatly scream 'victim'... Again, it depends on how well you know your dm.
|
So if a newborn human infant involuntarily peed on the Wicked Witch of the West, and she started going "I'm melting! I'm melting!" how would that be any different from a baby medusa looking at a monk?Similarly, if there were a convention of people with deadly peanut allergies, and Mr. Peanut walked into the room unaware of this, and people started dropping dead like he was a basilisk, what exactly should be done about the giant top-hatted and monocled sentient peanut? Is he an abomination sent by the gods?
This thing is not ONE being or even races allergy, it is anathema to ALL life. I might feel bad about it but i would not criticize someone for wanting to kill it. On top of that, we do not even know what IT truely is. part medusa but what was the father? I am ok with killing it just as i would kill my dog if it went rabid, no amount of compassion or love would allow me to let it be a threat to others. If they choose to save it they have an enormous burden of making sure it and the mother are never a threat to the innocent or THEY are guilty of what they unleash on the world
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.
If players killed orcs at random in my campaign, they'd suffer an alignment drop (my orcs are "usually evil" as in 3.5, not golarion always evil-orcs). Usually though, when encountering a group of orcs and it leads to bloodshed, the orcs are the one initiating it (unless they are actually doing something evil in the first place).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's rather amusing that most people seem to be OK with wholesale slaughter of anything that is not a human commoner, and some even against those if they happen to be in proximity of something that "Needs to die".
But what if they let one evildoer LIVE? Oh no! Now we are dealing with serious moral dilemmas! You are suddenly responsible for human innocents. Well, they might be human innocents, considering that a monster that has barely survived an encounter with champions of that race would likely try to avoid said race. Better to go harass some orcs. Everyone knows no-one gives two coppers about orcs.
And let's say we are looking from a character point of view. The players are done with the combat, there is one creature remaining that is not presenting a threat anymore. All indicates that she is just desperately trying to survive a traumatic experience. Now if only there was some way to SENSE if someone has a hidden MOTIVE. Like a skill or ability that the GM could call on when someone is talking with a person.
To kill something for "being a threat" at that point is moving into excuse territory, somewhere between Kingdom of Heaven, where the templars attack a caravan of farmers, crying "GOD WILLS IT!" and the scene in an old western movie which title eludes me, where the bad-guy throws a gun at the farmer's feet and tells him to pick it up, and after a series of intimidate checks, the farmer finally does as he asks, at which point the villain shoots him dead, turning to the shocked bystanders "You all saw it! He had a GUN!".
I am 6'10", weighing in at 350 lbs, former bouncer and trained in both karate and submission. I cannot claim "self defense" if a 5 year old child comes at me with a knife with intent to kill me for stepping on his toy, and I cave in his head with a heel-drop. It goes from self-preservation to malice rather quickly. And an excuse like "But he had a knife! He might kill all the kids in his kindergarten if I did not slay him!" would likely not make it any less horrible of an act.
A complete adventuring party vs a broken (inb4 anyone questions the physical strains of child-birth) medusa that is offering unconditional surrender is about the same. And in a setting where creatures do not default to one alignment or another (something the players and characters are well aware of), killing her is an act of malice. Sure, she might be a threat to someone else, OR, she might be so overwhelmed by being shown some compassion and humanity that she might turn over a new leaf. You know, like Sarenrae, the GOOD goddess preaches.
And as a response to Type2Demon's statement that some people keep ridiculously high demands of good. Yes, yes I do. Good is the ultimate weapon to defeat evil. Holy weapons, powerful spells, wards and whatnot that target alignment, not to mentioned summoned or gated celestial allies are among the most effective means to defeat evil, and as such, they need to be earned.
I am not arguing from the point of someone in the game. I am arguing as a poster on the boards so I am not metagaming. At no point did any of us say were making the arguments as characters so of course I am going to go with what the OP is telling me.
PS:If any of you are trying to solve this from a PC point of view versus someone in the world raise your hand so Ruemere can debate with you./Raises hand!
Darn you. Delete this post immediately. I demand to be 100% correct.
If you do not complyTo anyone other than 1592 who looks at the spoiler I apologize in advance.
No murderer has ever gotten off on the defense that the drugs made me do it, nor should they.
Actually, my ex got of an assault charge due to drugs. She was on heavy medication causing her to hallucinate, which, combined with her usual hallucinations caused her to think that another visitor to the hospital was a demon out to get her. She attacked him and it got to court where she was freed because she was on drugs and didn't know what she was doing.
Drugs can't force you to do stuff you don't want, but they can change what you want and how you percieve your surroundings. In effect, those things are the same.
|
|
It's rather amusing that most people seem to be OK with wholesale slaughter of anything that is not a human commoner, and some even against those if they happen to be in proximity of something that "Needs to die".
But what if they let one evildoer LIVE? Oh no! Now we are dealing with serious moral dilemmas! You are suddenly responsible for human innocents. Well, they might be human innocents, considering that a monster that has barely survived an encounter with champions of that race would likely try to avoid said race. Better to go harass some orcs. Everyone knows no-one gives two coppers about orcs.
And let's say we are looking from a character point of view. The players are done with the combat, there is one creature remaining that is not presenting a threat anymore. All indicates that she is just desperately trying to survive a traumatic experience. Now if only there was some way to SENSE if someone has a hidden MOTIVE. Like a skill or ability that the GM could call on when someone is talking with a person.
To kill something for "being a threat" at that point is moving into excuse territory, somewhere between Kingdom of Heaven, where the templars attack a caravan of farmers, crying "GOD WILLS IT!" and the scene in an old western movie which title eludes me, where the bad-guy throws a gun at the farmer's feet and tells him to pick it up, and after a series of intimidate checks, the farmer finally does as he asks, at which point the villain shoots him dead, turning to the shocked bystanders "You all saw it! He had a GUN!".
I am 6'10", weighing in at 350 lbs, former bouncer and trained in both karate and submission. I cannot claim "self defense" if a 5 year old child comes at me with a knife with intent to kill me for stepping on his toy, and I cave in his head with a heel-drop. It goes from self-preservation to malice rather quickly. And an excuse like "But he had a knife! He might kill all the kids in his kindergarten if I did not slay him!" would likely not make it any less horrible...
Except she is NOT harmless. She can be 1 hp, 1 in all stats and kill you with a glance. Show mercy if you want but remember the threat you are carting around.
No murderer has ever gotten off on the defense that the drugs made me do it, nor should they.Actually, my ex got of an assault charge due to drugs. She was on heavy medication causing her to hallucinate, which, combined with her usual hallucinations caused her to think that another visitor to the hospital was a demon out to get her. She attacked him and it got to court where she was freed because she was on drugs and didn't know what she was doing.
Drugs can't force you to do stuff you don't want, but they can change what you want and how you percieve your surroundings. In effect, those things are the same.
Indeed. And in this case, she did not willingly imbibe the drugs, which is a huge factor in my opinion. If you get drunk or high on your own accord, you are responsible for the fallout.
"I was drunk when I cheated on you! It's not my fault! I am not a slut!"
"You weren't drunk when you decided to dress like a whore and start doing tequila slammers at a pick-up bar, were you?"
vs
"I woke up in the hospital after an accident, and a worm-covered gremlin was eating my arm."
"That was the nurse checking your blood pressure."
@Andrew R: Comparatively. The PCs sounds like they are at LEAST lv6-7, and if they removed the petrification themselves, 11+. One defeated and impaired monster is not a genuine threat to them anymore.
Just like my argument that a lv14 character is not in any danger from a lv1 (presented through explaining how terribly under-equipped, under-trained, under-motivated and otherwise feeble they are) warrior, and the "but it's war, and that makes it OK" argument doesn't hold water. IF you are going to exterminate someone to "not show weakness", that is fine from a political stand-point. Still cruel and evil to slaughter helpless people in my game.
...It's rather amusing that most people seem to be OK with wholesale slaughter of anything that is not a human commoner, and some even against those if they happen to be in proximity of something that "Needs to die".
But what if they let one evildoer LIVE? Oh no! Now we are dealing with serious moral dilemmas! You are suddenly responsible for human innocents. Well, they might be human innocents, considering that a monster that has barely survived an encounter with champions of that race would likely try to avoid said race. Better to go harass some orcs. Everyone knows no-one gives two coppers about orcs.
And let's say we are looking from a character point of view. The players are done with the combat, there is one creature remaining that is not presenting a threat anymore. All indicates that she is just desperately trying to survive a traumatic experience. Now if only there was some way to SENSE if someone has a hidden MOTIVE. Like a skill or ability that the GM could call on when someone is talking with a person.
To kill something for "being a threat" at that point is moving into excuse territory, somewhere between Kingdom of Heaven, where the templars attack a caravan of farmers, crying "GOD WILLS IT!" and the scene in an old western movie which title eludes me, where the bad-guy throws a gun at the farmer's feet and tells him to pick it up, and after a series of intimidate checks, the farmer finally does as he asks, at which point the villain shoots him dead, turning to the shocked bystanders "You all saw it! He had a GUN!".
I am 6'10", weighing in at 350 lbs, former bouncer and trained in both karate and submission. I cannot claim "self defense" if a 5 year old child comes at me with a knife with intent to kill me for stepping on his toy, and I cave in his head with a heel-drop. It goes from self-preservation to malice rather quickly. And an excuse like "But he had a knife! He might kill all the kids in his kindergarten if I did not slay him!" would likely not make
I think the point was that the party over reacted, much like he would be if he layed the smack down on a 5 yr old.
Except she is NOT harmless. She can be 1 hp, 1 in all stats and kill you with a glance. Show mercy if you want but remember the threat you are carting around.
The save DC of her gaze attack would be 9... poor thing. :)
But what if they let one evildoer LIVE? Oh no! Now we are dealing with serious moral dilemmas! You are suddenly responsible for human innocents.
That's the thing about so-called "moral dilemmas". If there's an obvious right answer, it isn't a dilemma at all, and if there isn't an obvious right answer, it's poor form to punish the players for not choosing the option you agreed with.
|
|
Except she is NOT harmless. She can be 1 hp, 1 in all stats and kill you with a glance. Show mercy if you want but remember the threat you are carting around.The save DC of her gaze attack would be 9... poor thing. :)
Stil about a 50-50 every few seconds that any commoner she comes into contact with dies. What level are corrections officers in every town?
|
|
...It's rather amusing that most people seem to be OK with wholesale slaughter of anything that is not a human commoner, and some even against those if they happen to be in proximity of something that "Needs to die".
But what if they let one evildoer LIVE? Oh no! Now we are dealing with serious moral dilemmas! You are suddenly responsible for human innocents. Well, they might be human innocents, considering that a monster that has barely survived an encounter with champions of that race would likely try to avoid said race. Better to go harass some orcs. Everyone knows no-one gives two coppers about orcs.
And let's say we are looking from a character point of view. The players are done with the combat, there is one creature remaining that is not presenting a threat anymore. All indicates that she is just desperately trying to survive a traumatic experience. Now if only there was some way to SENSE if someone has a hidden MOTIVE. Like a skill or ability that the GM could call on when someone is talking with a person.
To kill something for "being a threat" at that point is moving into excuse territory, somewhere between Kingdom of Heaven, where the templars attack a caravan of farmers, crying "GOD WILLS IT!" and the scene in an old western movie which title eludes me, where the bad-guy throws a gun at the farmer's feet and tells him to pick it up, and after a series of intimidate checks, the farmer finally does as he asks, at which point the villain shoots him dead, turning to the shocked bystanders "You all saw it! He had a GUN!".
I am 6'10", weighing in at 350 lbs, former bouncer and trained in both karate and submission. I cannot claim "self defense" if a 5 year old child comes at me with a knife with intent to kill me for stepping on his toy, and I cave in his head with a heel-drop. It goes from self-preservation to malice rather quickly. And an excuse like "But he had a knife! He might kill all the kids in his kindergarten if I did not slay him!"
Except a 5 year old is not a constant threat. If they have a way to PERMANENTLY remove the gaze so she cannot accidently kill then it is a bit different
Except a 5 year old is not a constant threat. If they have a way to PERMANENTLY remove the gaze so she cannot accidently kill then it is a bit different
I understand a 5 yr old is not a medusa, but the wording is not important as long as you understand the idea. Otherwise you are just arguing semantics and not the issue.
I do agree that a 5yr old is far removed from a medusa, but you can replace it with another threat that could be, but is not definitely deadly.What makes you think the medusa is going to be in town? For the sake of argument if she is in town she gets sniped by archers, and in a world with adventurers monsters know better than to draw attention to themselves. It is just a silly thing to do.
If I am a player in a game, and the monster shows up in town as if it does not care who knows then I am expecting a trap unless it is a less intelligent monster like an owlbear.
|
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.
Correction:Some medusas are evil.
A breath attack is voluntary. A gaze attack by an infant is not.
So by your logic, it was evil to kill the baby as well, even though it presented a clear and present danger to both the group and the world at large.
In your games, is the surprise round used as a time to discuss the morality of killing the ooze that can't really be expected to know right from wrong?
|
|
I love forums. You wrote half a book on the moral and/or ethical implications of killing a medusa. There are pleny of civilized societies that would kill an abomination like that on sight, it doesn't make them any less civilized. This is a game and you're making this issue much more complicated for the scope of a game my friend. That's my take on this situation. The bottom line is I wouldn't penalize the Monk too much for this, maybe a stern reprimand of some sort by whatever authority he reports to.Sure it makes them less civilized. Tolerance is one of the benchmarks of civilization.
And "abomination"? Seriously? You realize that term has also been applied to certain sexual preferences not to mention a liking for shrimp cocktail and lobster thermidor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medusa
Perseus was evil! He killed her on a whim while she was sleeping! He didn't find out if she planned to continue turning people to stone!
So by your logic, it was evil to kill the baby as well, even though it presented a clear and present danger to both the group and the world at large.
In your games, is the surprise round used as a time to discuss the morality of killing the ooze that can't really be expected to know right from wrong?
By my logic I don't think that most medusas being evil is the same as all medusas being evil.
How is that baby a danger to the world? I will give you the group argument
An ooze is an active hunter, a baby monster, at least this one, is not.
I am not saying the baby should live, just because it is baby. I just disagree with the logic of something trying to kill you vs something that is doing so by accident being in the same category. The Mr.Peanut example given by another poster comes to mind.
example:
I killed the baby because it may have killed me.<--That is fine.
I killed the baby because it is trying to kill me.<--Not fine, because that is a false statement.