|
My games tend to feature the heroes slaying the dragon killing the people, not giving it a stern talking to about being a nice neighbor and hoping it doesn't take a second pass at the peasant buffet.
Somehow you managed to not read my statement about heroes in my game killing the dragon as well.
I suspect you've been selectively reading quite a few of the posts in this thread.
|
|
Other means they are there, population stats do not say if they are living in the sewers or undercover. How many explicitly say that all monster are welcome?Lawful Neutral Molthrune for starters.
Kaer Maga welcomes everyone.
Any city with a population percentage set to "Other" is open to it.
Katapesh, with Sarenrae worshippers aplenty, is noted as being a place where outcast monstrous races can fit in.
Shall I go on?
There you go with that selective reading again.
Look up.
READ THE G!$+~&N POST.
|
Some of us like a game that is not a constant and often unrealistic idea of morality crammed into everything. You kill threats when you must, murders can swing and the innocent are protected without some divine agency of the DM making it all go away after you make the "right" choice. So many talk about moral choices but from what i have read so few of them really are. The paladin must die before doing anything not nice, throw yourself on every sword and every monster just really needs a hug. Good is retarded and only makes it past level one by DM fait. I am tired of epic fantasy being turned into the damned carebears. Throw away good and evil or donot have such an absurd standard for good and you might actually get some moral complication and real humanity in it.So the angels run a otherworld alcatraz/daycare that will come and get your surrender/ innocent deathdealer on any call. COOL.
SOMEONE can afford to house and secure them all. Heard that before in reality, working good in my state. Of course that may involve taxing the peasents to death.....
Merciful weapons and metamagic, tripping and grappling, killing is always a choice in a world of such infinate resources....Why I do believe we have some apples and oranges up in this piece.
You know Andrew, if you're so hard on for games where you can freely commit genocide and call it good, go ahead.
Stop getting defensive and butthurt because some of use find it to be an unsettling or repulsive game.
Except here's the thing.
My players, and I when I get to play, don't need that constant divine agency to get our backs when we play idealistic characters. We enjoy playing Big Damn Heroes that sometimes have to kill, but try not to. Characters that don't just go "it's a monster, kill it". And we @#$%ing work for it, because good isn't what's convenient.
We also don't have GMs trying to screw over the players. That helps.
But for some reason that really...
No it chaps my ass that you expect others to go by your idea of good or declare their pcs evil when your idea of good doesn't work in every game. Some of us play in worlds closer to reality and what realities rules are, where good is an ideal not a goal so suicidally lofty that none can reach it. I am the devils advocate agianst the trend of all good must be perfectly saintly and having it is a straightjacket.
I suspect you've been selectively reading quite a few of the posts in this thread.
Of course, how else does "redeem the redeemable" turn into "you're saying everything must be redeemed!".
|
|
No it chaps my ass that you expect others to go by your idea of good or declare their pcs evil when your idea of good doesn't work in every game. Some of us play in worlds closer to reality and what realities rules are, where good is an ideal not a goal so suicidally lofty that none can reach it. I am the devils advocate agianst the trend of all good must be perfectly saintly and having it is a straightjacket.
You're upset because people were voicing opinions on whether an action was evil or not.
In a thread made by someone asking if an act in his game was evil or not.
Holy s@@%.
And again with the exaggeration of what some people want good to be for their games.
|
|
I suspect you've been selectively reading quite a few of the posts in this thread.Of course, how else does "redeem the redeemable" turn into "you're saying everything must be redeemed!".
Yeah, I'm done with him.
I'm disappointed with myself that it took this long to realize I was getting trolled. S$+*.
Some of us play in worlds closer to reality and what realities rules are, where good is an ideal not a goal so suicidally lofty that none can reach it.
Yes, closer to reality, where if someone looks like they can be a threat it's common sense to shoot first and never ask questions despite the current situation.
|
Other means they are there, population stats do not say if they are living in the sewers or undercover. How many explicitly say that all monster are welcome?Lawful Neutral Molthrune for starters.
Kaer Maga welcomes everyone.
Any city with a population percentage set to "Other" is open to it.
Katapesh, with Sarenrae worshippers aplenty, is noted as being a place where outcast monstrous races can fit in.
Shall I go on?
There you go with that selective reading again.
Look up.
READ THE G@&@+@N POST.
Will welcome a medusa? Really?
Do you own the beastiary? It says in the description they use lies and disguise to set traps.
This is a world with monsters who are evil. Medusa are lawful evil monstrous humonoids.
We aren't talking about a creature that has an ambigious baseline for good or evil.
|
|
Some of us play in worlds closer to reality and what realities rules are, where good is an ideal not a goal so suicidally lofty that none can reach it.Yes, closer to reality, where if someone looks like they can be a threat it's common sense to shoot first and never ask questions despite the current situation.
Closer to reality, medusa don't exist.
However since we are not discussing reality, they do in the world of illusion, and they are evil and can turn you to stone by looking at you and are at full power even with only one hit point.
So since we are discussing the world of illussion...
This is a world with monsters who are evil. Medusa are lawful evil monstrous humonoids.
We aren't talking about a creature that has an ambigious baseline for good or evil.
reminder of my previous post
Correction:some medusas are evil.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An excerpt on how I played my paladin/monk "Toshiro" in a select few situations:
Lv1-3; Ambushed by some demonic-looking crab creatures that he doesn't know what is: "Holy s%%+, everything is dangerous, I must protect my allies as best I can. What the heck is that in the water!? AAAAGH! THEY ARE EATING ME! KILL IT!" - Turned out it was a dumb beast that was hungry. Felt bad for being scared. Ate it so it's death was not in vain. Was delicious. From then on, we relied on the ranger to lead us around local fauna that is merely out to snack, and making sure we at least TRY to eat those we have to kill.
Lv3-4; dealing with a bunch of devil-worshiping cannibals and ghouls that was cutting out hearts of allies and roasting remains on a spit. "I shall avenge thee, friends! SMITE EVIL!" And it was evil. No mercy was requested.
Lv5-8; dealing with several competing factions while exploring a city. Made sure to try diplomatic approach at all turns, and offer healing whenever we came over an injured rival. Much to the non-good party members' dismay as it makes them more effective at harming our endeavor. A rapist/murderer/psycho from one rival faction depose his leader and assaults our camp and kills several allies, we go to him and offer he give his surrender, return of the goods he stole. "Step down, and surrender. I am not leaving here without justice and our rightful possessions. I will offer an honorable duel so your men do not need be involved." He scoffed and we had to fight. Beat him and gave him a clean death for his crimes. Then we find and heal the original leader, and let them all withdraw in peace.
Lv9-10; learn that a rival leader and an old friend has been dominated by a monster (yay, sense motive), we go out of our way to remove the effects and defeat the monster that bestowed said effect. Would have been much easier to kill them, as they were several levels lower than us, and Toshiro could likely take them out in two rounds, or three tops, instead of waiting while the cleric and wizard hammered them with dispels. Defeated monsters, gained allies.
Never justified his actions, as he made no actions in need of being justified. The CN rogue thinks him an idealistic fool, but after ten levels of showing that good works, she is almost warming up to him.
Lawful Neutral Molthrune for starters.
Kaer Maga welcomes everyone.
Any city with a population percentage set to "Other" is open to it.
Katapesh, with Sarenrae worshippers aplenty, is noted as being a place where outcast monstrous races can fit in.
Shall I go on? Other means they are there, population stats do not say if they are living in the sewers or undercover. How many explicitly say that all monster are welcome?
There you go with that selective reading again.
Look up.
READ THE G@&@+@N POST.
Will welcome a medusa? Really?
Do you own the beastiary? It says in the description they use lies and disguise to set traps.
This is a world with monsters who are evil. Medusa are lawful evil monstrous humonoids.
We aren't talking about a creature that has an ambigious baseline for good or evil.
Except we do. OP stated clearly that he runs a world where color coded dragons only clues you in on breath weapons, not on how they view political and philosophical ideas. Not all monsters are copy-pasta from the bestiary. I have a VEEEERY evil Satyr running around in my Kingmaker game, even if the bestiary say that they are good.
Closer to reality, medusa don't exist.
However since we are not discussing reality, they do in the world of illusion, and they are even and can turn you to stone by looking at you and are at full power even with only one hit point.
So since we are discussing the world of illussion...
What? He brought up reality as a defense for an "if it's a threat it must die" notion, that's not how reality works though. In reality humans have various codes of acceptable behavior even in the event of violence.
|
|
This is a world with monsters who are evil. Medusa are lawful evil monstrous humonoids.
We aren't talking about a creature that has an ambigious baseline for good or evil.
reminder of my previous post
Correction:some medusas are evil.
Actually, almost all medusa are evil.
Hence being listed as evil in the beastiary.
This is a world with monsters who are evil. Medusa are lawful evil monstrous humonoids.
We aren't talking about a creature that has an ambigious baseline for good or evil.
reminder of my previous post
Correction:some medusas are evil.Actually, almost all medusa are evil.
Hence being listed as evil in the beastiary.
Unless your GM says so, of course.
|
|
Other means they are there, population stats do not say if they are living in the sewers or undercover. How many explicitly say that all monster are welcome?Lawful Neutral Molthrune for starters.
Kaer Maga welcomes everyone.
Any city with a population percentage set to "Other" is open to it.
Katapesh, with Sarenrae worshippers aplenty, is noted as being a place where outcast monstrous races can fit in.
Shall I go on?
There you go with that selective reading again.
Look up.
READ THE G@&@+@N POST.
Will welcome a medusa? Really?
Do you own the beastiary? It says in the description they use lies and disguise to set traps.
This is a world with monsters who are evil. Medusa are lawful evil monstrous humonoids.
We aren't talking about a creature that has an ambigious baseline for good or evil.
1. You're jumping lines of discussion. That post was in repsonse to something else. But...
2. The Bestiary also notes that those alignments are not absolute.
3. Kaer Maga welcomes everybody. And Molthrune's intelligence and military would love to have a medusa on tap.
4. If said medusa was seeking refuge and was trying to be something other than stock-villain evil, you bet your ass any Sarenraen actually worthy of the name would accept her.
|
|
Unless your GM says so, of course.
This is a world with monsters who are evil. Medusa are lawful evil monstrous humonoids.
We aren't talking about a creature that has an ambigious baseline for good or evil.
reminder of my previous post
Correction:some medusas are evil.Actually, almost all medusa are evil.
Hence being listed as evil in the beastiary.
Which brings us back to the OP's game, funny enough.
|
|
What? He brought up reality as a defense for an "if it's a threat it must die" notion, that's not how reality works though. In reality humans have various codes of acceptable behavior even in the event of violence.Closer to reality, medusa don't exist.
However since we are not discussing reality, they do in the world of illusion, and they are even and can turn you to stone by looking at you and are at full power even with only one hit point.
So since we are discussing the world of illussion...
But the topic is the game.
In the game, medusa are pariah, in part because they turn people to stone.
If DM decide to run Lmonster with a heart of gold" games they shouldn't blame the PC for not being able to mind read that one of thses monsters is actually really nice.
(He DM tried to get cute with an off book concet and the player thought a medusa was evil and therefore a threat.
|
|
What? He brought up reality as a defense for an "if it's a threat it must die" notion, that's not how reality works though. In reality humans have various codes of acceptable behavior even in the event of violence.Closer to reality, medusa don't exist.
However since we are not discussing reality, they do in the world of illusion, and they are even and can turn you to stone by looking at you and are at full power even with only one hit point.
So since we are discussing the world of illussion...
But the topic is the game.
In the game, medusa are pariah, in part because they turn people to stone.
If DM decide to run Lmonster with a heart of gold" games they shouldn't blame the PC for not being able to mind read that one of thses monsters is actually really nice.
(He DM tried to get cute with an off book concet and the player thought a medusa was evil and therefore a threat.
Read the thread again.
The players knew what kind of game the GM was running.
|
|
What? He brought up reality as a defense for an "if it's a threat it must die" notion, that's not how reality works though. In reality humans have various codes of acceptable behavior even in the event of violence.Closer to reality, medusa don't exist.
However since we are not discussing reality, they do in the world of illusion, and they are even and can turn you to stone by looking at you and are at full power even with only one hit point.
So since we are discussing the world of illussion...
But the topic is the game.
In the game, medusa are pariah, in part because they turn people to stone.
If DM decide to run Lmonster with a heart of gold" games they shouldn't blame the PC for not being able to mind read that one of thses monsters is actually really nice.
(He DM tried to get cute with an off book concet and the player thought a medusa was evil and therefore a threat.
Read the thread again.
The players knew what kind of game the GM was running.
Did the player post?
|
|
What? He brought up reality as a defense for an "if it's a threat it must die" notion, that's not how reality works though. In reality humans have various codes of acceptable behavior even in the event of violence.Closer to reality, medusa don't exist.
However since we are not discussing reality, they do in the world of illusion, and they are even and can turn you to stone by looking at you and are at full power even with only one hit point.
So since we are discussing the world of illussion...
But the topic is the game.
In the game, medusa are pariah, in part because they turn people to stone.
If DM decide to run Lmonster with a heart of gold" games they shouldn't blame the PC for not being able to mind read that one of thses monsters is actually really nice.
(He DM tried to get cute with an off book concet and the player thought a medusa was evil and therefore a threat.
Read the thread again.
The players knew what kind of game the GM was running.
Did the player post?
No, the GM stated that the players knew.
Now if you want to call the OP a liar and continue arguing from that perspective, that's your call.
What plane are the azatas on? I'm thinking about setting up a daycare there...Hell, that's a solid idea. At the very least it would get the kids out of reach of the pogrom-happy player races.
In before someone suggests that entities based on the very concepts of good, redemption, mercy, etc. with all the resources of the Upper Planes would still go "Ew evil! Kill it!"
Is summon celestial nanny on the spell list?
Do the gods (you know exemplars of good and all) send them to follow the party?No, but summoned beings made of goodness tend to take an interest in making sure the innocent are cared for.
GO FIGURE.
As for the gods...well, considering that none of the gods that endorse genocide are good in any setting I run...they tend to not be stingy on the level appropriate help if asked.
OK, you say in your world Gods they tend to not be stingy on the level appropriate help if asked. That's fine, in most I think that is not so, certainly in mine, Gods intervene very rarely if at all.
Medua is a CR 7 monster, assuming that was the average party level, summoning a powerful Good aligned celestial is not within their capabilities, at best they can get a 6HD good aligned celestial, hardly strong enough to deal with this IMHO. Having said that, I can think of some other ways to further determine the players correct actions.1. Detect evil on the Medusa- I know, not all evil creatures need to be outright killed, but as was stated Medusa are known for lying so an Evil medusa that promised to be good? I just don't think it would be safe to assume it would.Even if it was LE, it would likely find a way to wiggle out of its promise through wording, that's what LE usually does. They do what benefits them at the time and will say whatever they have to to survive.
2. Zone of truth- Now if the Medusa is not evil and it states under a zone of truth that it has no desire to hurt anyone and will not use its gaze ever except in self defense, I would probably let her live, I might even let her care for the child, if she promised to keep it away from people and raise it not to use its gaze.
If it is evil and it fails to convince me it is not a threat under zone of truth, I am probably killing it.
Having said that, I still would probably not change the Monks alignment for this one act.
|
|
What? He brought up reality as a defense for an "if it's a threat it must die" notion, that's not how reality works though. In reality humans have various codes of acceptable behavior even in the event of violence.Closer to reality, medusa don't exist.
However since we are not discussing reality, they do in the world of illusion, and they are even and can turn you to stone by looking at you and are at full power even with only one hit point.
So since we are discussing the world of illussion...
But the topic is the game.
In the game, medusa are pariah, in part because they turn people to stone.
If DM decide to run Lmonster with a heart of gold" games they shouldn't blame the PC for not being able to mind read that one of thses monsters is actually really nice.
(He DM tried to get cute with an off book concet and the player thought a medusa was evil and therefore a threat.
Read the thread again.
The players knew what kind of game the GM was running.
Did the player post?
No, the GM stated that the players knew.
Now if you want to call the OP a liar and continue arguing from that perspective, that's your call.
No, was just checking to make sure I could just read the OP's stuff to verify that it wasn't clear.
The druid hit her mid birth with a fireball, meaning he thought she and/or the baby were a threat.
So...
Do you have a citation of one of the posts? The player seemed to view the mother of the creature that turned him to stone as a threat, possibly because a) she could also turn him to stone and b) she is a medusa!
c) XP!
d) Because the player flipped a coin and seems about as invested in thinking in-character this campaign as most men are towards the frilly curtain industry
e) because the player was not paying attention (happens all the time in my game)
f) he didn't get to kill anything all combat. SNO~ORE!
|
|
c) XP!
d) Because the player flipped a coin and seems about as invested in thinking in-character this campaign as most men are towards the frilly curtain industry
e) because the player was not paying attention (happens all the time in my game)
Xp either wayN in most games. More actually if you do what the DM thought was "best".
It wasn't a puppy. It literally just birthed what the player has every reason to believe was an evil being who turned it to stone. It is a huge logical leap to think the medusa is NOT evil in the circumstance provided.
Not to mention the monk is neutral.
|
|
Not to mention the monk is neutral.Tough s~@*. He's a neutral monk that did a chaotic evil deed. THat's what the OP was asking about.
The thread has been up and down this already.
You couldn't find a citation from the OP could you.
Fight your strawman to your hearts context, the monk killed grendels mother.
It literally just birthed what the player has every reason to believe was an evil being who turned it to stone. It is a huge logical leap to think the medusa is NOT evil in the circumstance provided.
Eh... what the heck? The medusa had just then given birth to a (non-outsider) creature. That means that unless there was some alignment exchange via the placenta, a) said creature knows zero about good or evil and is strictly neutral (acting on instincts without conscious choice or rationalization), and b) the medusa's alignment has absolutely nothing to do with her spawn's.
Sorry, but I think it is a much bigger logical leap to infer the alignment of a parent from a just-born creature. If I have a kid that is one month old and cares about absolutely nothing but itself, does that mean I and its mother are self-obsessed egomaniacs?
Not to mention the monk is neutral.Tough s%~@. He's a neutral monk that did a chaotic evil deed. THat's what the OP was asking about.
The thread has been up and down this already.
So hypothetical,lets say the Medusa actually was evil and just begging for mercy and fully intended to go back to its lair and lure people to it and use them as statues once the pathetic gullible party let it go. Would the Monks actions still be Chaotic Evil in your book? Is it the results that determine the goodness/evilness of the deed, or the intent?
I am asking because I am not honestly sure how I would answer this question.
|
|
It literally just birthed what the player has every reason to believe was an evil being who turned it to stone. It is a huge logical leap to think the medusa is NOT evil in the circumstance provided.Eh... what the heck? The medusa had just then given birth to a (non-outsider) creature. That means that unless there was some alignment exchange via the placenta, a) said creature knows zero about good or evil and is strictly neutral (acting on instincts without conscious choice or rationalization), and b) the medusa's alignment has absolutely nothing to do with her spawn's.
Sorry, but I think it is a much bigger logical leap to infer the alignment of a parent from a just-born creature. If I have a kid that is one month old and cares about absolutely nothing but itself, does that mean I and its mother are self-obsessed egomaniacs?
It attacked the monk.
If you take the moral ignorance route, are they vegan adveturers as well?
This is a world with monsters who are evil. Medusa are lawful evil monstrous humonoids.
We aren't talking about a creature that has an ambigious baseline for good or evil.
reminder of my previous post
Correction:some medusas are evil.Actually, almost all medusa are evil.
Hence being listed as evil in the beastiary.
If it is not all then it is some.
Does this mean that everything that has a predetermined alignment inherits their parents memories, ideologies and sensibilities through DNA, like certain insects? I know fiendish blood more or less compels you to be evil, but for a newborn child LITERALLY 10 seconds into life to make the conscious act of attacking a PC, there is no other explanation.
What? He brought up reality as a defense for an "if it's a threat it must die" notion, that's not how reality works though. In reality humans have various codes of acceptable behavior even in the event of violence.Closer to reality, medusa don't exist.
However since we are not discussing reality, they do in the world of illusion, and they are even and can turn you to stone by looking at you and are at full power even with only one hit point.
So since we are discussing the world of illussion...
But the topic is the game.
In the game, medusa are pariah, in part because they turn people to stone.
If DM decide to run Lmonster with a heart of gold" games they shouldn't blame the PC for not being able to mind read that one of thses monsters is actually really nice.
(He DM tried to get cute with an off book concet and the player thought a medusa was evil and therefore a threat.
Which goes back to this point:
PS: I will also add that if a GM wants his sentient monsters to be treated humanely he should portray them as such from time to time. If he always has them act like monsters with no regard for life that is how they will be treated. I am making my arguments based on a world where monsters are not just "monsters".
We do not know if the GM/OP does this or not
Does this mean that everything that has a predetermined alignment inherits their parents memories, ideologies and sensibilities through DNA, like certain insects? I know fiendish blood more or less compels you to be evil, but for a newborn child LITERALLY 10 seconds into life to make the conscious act of attacking a PC, there is no other explanation.
Not that I am switching side, but typically in D&D creatures have their alignment due to how they were raised and the cycle is almost never ending.
Some of us(GM's) don't stick to the script(what the book tells us to do) which is what I think is the base of the arguments here.In my game a medusa might be evil, but that does not mean it has plans to turn the village to stone, and while it has powers it still may be less evil than your local crime lord.
Monsters that are typically evil in my games are also able to be bargained with and some will keep their word.
Not every monster is evil in my games either. I am sure those that have being agreeing with me run similar games, but others don't.
As for the OP I don't know if he does this or not and I forgot to ask the last time he showed up.
Does this mean that everything that has a predetermined alignment inherits their parents memories, ideologies and sensibilities through DNA, like certain insects? I know fiendish blood more or less compels you to be evil, but for a newborn child LITERALLY 10 seconds into life to make the conscious act of attacking a PC, there is no other explanation.
Well, seeing as the newborn could petrify by doing nothing more than looking at you, I could hardly think that its alignment had anything to do with the Monk's dilemma.
|
|
Not to mention the monk is neutral.Tough s~@*. He's a neutral monk that did a chaotic evil deed. THat's what the OP was asking about.
The thread has been up and down this already.
You couldn't find a citation from the OP could you.
Fight your strawman to your hearts context, the monk killed grendels mother.
Learn to read.
She didn't attack the monk.
The child did.
The monk took it out on the medusa.
You have consistently misrepresented the situation in this thread.
Stop doing that.
|
|
Not to mention the monk is neutral.Tough s%~@. He's a neutral monk that did a chaotic evil deed. THat's what the OP was asking about.
The thread has been up and down this already.
So hypothetical,lets say the Medusa actually was evil and just begging for mercy and fully intended to go back to its lair and lure people to it and use them as statues once the pathetic gullible party let it go. Would the Monks actions still be Chaotic Evil in your book? Is it the results that determine the goodness/evilness of the deed, or the intent?
I am asking because I am not honestly sure how I would answer this question.
All of it comes into play.
If the medusa really was planning to turn on them, the monk was still chaotically(coin flip wut) taking his grief out on someone that had benn enslaved, raped, forced to give birth just a moment before the immediate situation, and saw her baby incinerated and was torched herself.
It was a foul deed. Even if it had unexpected benefits, it doesn't wash away the evil.
Some of us(GM's) don't stick to the script(what the book tells us to do) which is what I think is the base of the arguments here.
In my game a medusa might be evil, but that does not mean it has plans to turn the village to stone, and while it has powers it still may be less evil than your local crime lord.
Monsters that are typically evil in my games are also able to be bargained with and some will keep their word.
Not every monster is evil in my games either. I am sure those that have being agreeing with me run similar games, but others don't.As for the OP I don't know if he does this or not and I forgot to ask the last time he showed up.
Yeah, this. I tend to have monsters keep their alignments from the bestiary, but it's 'Most' not 'All' or even 'Almost All'. They are usually 51% to 90% that alignment (not talking about planar creatures with an alignment tag, those are 99.9999% that alignment).
However, there's degree's of evilness. I tend to use the 'tendency toward'. All PCs in my games are Good or Neutral with Tendency towards good. My evil monsters might be Evil with a tendency towards Neutral, or Neutral with a Tendency towards evil.
A good example for me would be, for a Medusa to keep it on topic, a Medusa living in a tower out in the wilderness. She's Lawful Evil, with tendencies towards Neutral. She doesn't go out of her way to bother anyone, and if anyone comes around they get treated depending on how they treat her. If they're polite, drink tea with her, then she doesn't bother them. She'll trade news of the area, talk about politics from 300 years ago, whatever. If they are rude or attack her, she turns them into statues and puts them in her garden and admires them for the next few hundred years, occasionally unfreezing them and then refreezing them to get them into better and more pleasing poses, and feels not a bit of remorse over it.
Is she evil? Oh yes, absolutely. Is she dangerous? Yep, if you mess with her. Is she a rampaging evil that will threaten the world? Not really. Does she need to be killed? I'd say probably not. She's the type who'd probably take in lost kids and raise them as LN, so long as they weren't bratty. She might even stone them as punishment, and then remove the stone curse once they'd completed their grounding.
So hypothetical,lets say the Medusa actually was evil and just begging for mercy and fully intended to go back to its lair and lure people to it and use them as statues once the pathetic gullible party let it go. Would the Monks actions still be Chaotic Evil in your book? Is it the results that determine the goodness/evilness of the deed, or the intent?
I am asking because I am not honestly sure how I would answer this question.
For me...still does not make the monk's action better. It is still evil. Because there was other solution that exist in the scope of the game to prevent the medusa from harming others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also....in D&D the orphanage for the children of evil monsters has existed before...I don't see it as outlandish for one to exist in any game. Actualy I always have that sorta of thing in my games.
The question I have why does it bother you people so much that they exist?
Who pays for it? A church. In the FR it is usualy runned by the church of Eldath...in Golarion alot of faiths might sponsor one.
I don't get why it bothers some of the posters so much that people view the above scenario as evil? It not like we are out to screw the players...my players know what kinda of game I run. They enjoy it.
I think this is case of people being screwed over by bad DMs in the past. Thus you guys are just projecting these bad traits on everybody.
I find the statement 'there is no justification and continuing to try will get you kicked out' to be very easy. :P
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. ^^
Alignment gives you a slightly less terminal looking stick to whack players who are only slightly disruptive. :p
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.
Yes they can force you to do things you don't want to do. Heck even changing the question of if you want to do them amounts to mind control of a limited sense.
Do you own the beastiary? It says in the description they use lies and disguise to set traps.This is a world with monsters who are evil. Medusa are lawful evil monstrous humonoids.
We aren't talking about a creature that has an ambigious baseline for good or evil.
I might own a bestiary -- however the character probably doesn't. Indeed I know one of the few ways I can piss off a GM faster than anything else is to question him about his monsters especially in the middle of a game.
It is much more meta-gaming to assume the character knows the bestiary than for a character to act according to his alignment and personality to the things he comes across.
What the bestiary says is generally irrelevant to a character, since the character has little means to know what is in the bestiary.
Player knowledge =/= character knowledge.
So the argument, "The bestiary says they are always evil" holds no real weight when it comes to in game actions -- especially when the GM has stated that a large part of his campaign world is that sentient creatures have alignments that differ from the bestiary.
What the bestiary says is generally irrelevant to a character, since the character has little means to know what is in the bestiary.
Really not disagreeing with you on this....but that is what knowledge checks are for. For the characters to know what is in the Bestiary. Though a character should make that knowledge check so he knows...which the monk made no attempt to do.
This also allows the GM to change the Bestiary entry to what he wants or needs.
Not to mention the monk is neutral.Tough s~@*. He's a neutral monk that did a chaotic evil deed. THat's what the OP was asking about.
The thread has been up and down this already.
You couldn't find a citation from the OP could you.
Fight your strawman to your hearts context, the monk killed grendels mother.
You know, I have to deal with some other people who refuse to read the rest of the thread on the Star Wars: The Old Republic forums.
But at least they have an excuse, because there are 14.000 preceding posts in that particular discussion ( and I am only asking them to look at the first 2.000 of those... kids these days... ).
What is your excuse for not simply clicking on the OP's nametag and looking at this latest posts, where he explains very explicitly what the situation was?
What the bestiary says is generally irrelevant to a character, since the character has little means to know what is in the bestiary.Really not disagreeing with you on this....but that is what knowledge checks are for. For the characters to know what is in the Bestiary. Though a character should make that knowledge check so he knows...which the monk made no attempt to do.
This also allows the GM to change the Bestiary entry to what he wants or needs.
Exactly -- which again puts it clearly as "not what is in the bestiary" but firmly into the "what the GM tells you" area.
Which means again that the bestiary is largely irrelevant to the character -- what matters is what the GM provides for him. Since the GM can easily differ from the Bestiary it is at best a tool for the player and GM -- not the character. So using your player knowledge for your in character knowledge is absolutely meta-gaming and a false argument (in this case).
Even if it was a clear case of "always 100% racial evil" that doesn't change the character's responsibility for their own actions and what type of actions those are.
Interesting thread. I found myself on the fence about this one... but I think that there is a strong case for LN. It was a pragmatic decision and in 99.9% of scenarios the right one. Medusa's are tricky buggers.. Never can tell when they are lying.
