Topic says it all.
It seems to me that using Charm Person in this way would be evil. I can only hope that one more eloquent than I can put this thought to words.
If the chamred chap is good yes
If the charmed chap is neutral maybe
If the charmed chap is evil no
killing an evil NPC regardless of the circumstances is a good/neutral act not an evil one, such are the clear cut ways of PF
if you want to argue morality then adventures who slay ANY monster who just happens to cross their path is an evil act.
Killing is implied to be an Evil act in the alignment rules. Final answers lie in the GM's hands.
Can you quote me the rule that says that?
killing an evil NPC regardless of the circumstances is a good/neutral act not an evil one, such are the clear cut ways of PF
Can you quote me any rule regarding morality and alignment ;)
EDIT
Better yet
Show me a rule or even give me an explanation in what situation a Lawful Good Paladin using Smite Evil to kill an Evil NPC could be considered an evil act ;)
with the above example Paly would smite charmed evil NPC.
and then what Paly loses LG status for comiting an evil act and must atone ? heh I'd like to see that enforced in PFS ;)
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killng others.Seems to regard morality and alignment.
Huzzah you win the No Prize :P
although I did say rule, "implies" is hardly a rule
on a tangent if you want to interject morality into actual rules just steal Saga's Dark side point system and overlay.
The issue to me is that there seems to be a difference between just killing a monster or bandit, and making them your friend...then killing them.
Perhaps I'm alone in this thinking.
How's my second quote for a rule? :)
Hah yes you def get the No prize for second quote :)
|
The issue to me is that there seems to be a difference between just killing a monster or bandit, and making them your friend...then killing them.
Perhaps I'm alone in this thinking.
I know the original intent of your question is about morality but it seems to me if he is charmed their are many ways out of that situation that does not require killing said charmed NPC.
Like... Hey my new friend lets go down to the local law enforcement office or look at these lovely ropes/shackles I bet they would look great on you this time of year... Hey lets go skinny dipping in that great muddy... you first Taa dah naked NPC... just my 2 cents...
I see them as equally wrong, just in different ways.
you know you could run a very interesting campaign where there was a rule that killing ANYONE who is sentient is considering evil no matter the circumstances.
not only that killing someone immediately taints you with the aura of an evil alignment.
The issue to me is that there seems to be a difference between just killing a monster or bandit, and making them your friend...then killing them.
Perhaps I'm alone in this thinking.
I know the original intent of your question is about morality but it seems to me if he is charmed their are many ways out of that situation that does not require killing said charmed NPC.
Like... Hey my new friend lets go down to the local law enforcement office or look at these lovely ropes/shackles I bet they would look great on you this time of year... Hey lets go skinny dipping in that great muddy... you first Taa dah naked NPC... just my 2 cents...
would that mean sleeping with a charmed NPC more or less evil than killing them ;)
I don't see why its any more evil than burning him alive in a giant gout of flame or putting 4 feet of steel through his liver.
Topic says it all.
It seems to me that using Charm Person in this way would be evil. I can only hope that one more eloquent than I can put this thought to words.
If the dude was charmed mid combat and it's known that once they snap-out that they'll start attacking the party, then it's not different than pin -> Coup'de grace.
If it's without provocation, and they only charmed him for the purpose of making him easier to kill, then hardcore. Probably much more evil than the above situation.
However, good and evil can be defined in a variety of ways, so see how the players RP it out first, then decide.
Context is probably one of the most important thing regarding morality.
|
you know you could run a very interesting campaign where there was a rule that killing ANYONE who is sentient is considering evil no matter the circumstances.
not only that killing someone immediately taints you with the aura of an evil alignment.
The setting would be very interesting, with social bans against killing, and involved duels that settle irreconcilable differences. Plenty of political maneuvering as well. And Assassins would be TRULY Evil for once. :)
Any threatening action from you or your allies breaks the charm... Making them Evil and an Enemy again...
Unless you tie them up first... or stab them in the back... Ehhh Even Stabbing them in the back would break the charm as it's an attack.
I don't believe it is an HONORABLE act... but the man IS your enemy, and mechanically speaking, it's about the same as coup d'grace and attacking in a surprise round. Or possibly even daze spells and Hold person...
ESPECIALLY with the shortened duration from 2E... in 2E, an average person could be your bestest buddy for weeks or months at a time... here it's what? a couple Hours?
If I were in the LG catagory of Paladin or priest, i probably wouldn't encourage such behavior... but everyone else sees it as similiar to hold person or any other 'stop attacking me' spells.
Now... if your in a tavern, or walking down a city street... and you charm a mugger, then kill him... THAT is probably evil. you have plenty of time to just walk him to the authorities... but on the road or in a dungeon?
Nope....
Ask the military if there is a difference between killing someone in combat and executing them when they are under your control. One is justifiable and the other is a war crime. PF doesn't even require you to kill to gain experience, just defeat the enemy. Charmed and used as a tool is "defeated". Slaughtered afterwards for no reason beyond convenience is evil. If you're not sure about that you rolled a "1" on your Knowledge: Morality check. My 2 cp.
|
The setting would be very interesting, with social bans against killing, and involved duels that settle irreconcilable differences. Plenty of political maneuvering as well. And Assassins would be TRULY Evil for once. :)you know you could run a very interesting campaign where there was a rule that killing ANYONE who is sentient is considering evil no matter the circumstances.
not only that killing someone immediately taints you with the aura of an evil alignment.
See now I'm imagining good characters and celestials resorting to dishing out "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream" fates out to evildoers.
:O
would that mean sleeping with a charmed NPC more or less evil than killing them ;)The issue to me is that there seems to be a difference between just killing a monster or bandit, and making them your friend...then killing them.
Perhaps I'm alone in this thinking.
I know the original intent of your question is about morality but it seems to me if he is charmed their are many ways out of that situation that does not require killing said charmed NPC.
Like... Hey my new friend lets go down to the local law enforcement office or look at these lovely ropes/shackles I bet they would look great on you this time of year... Hey lets go skinny dipping in that great muddy... you first Taa dah naked NPC... just my 2 cents...
Oddly enough, the only time I've ever seen the charm spell used that way in a D&D property is in the unusually awful Temple of Elemental Evil novelization from 2001.
Possibly the worst novel ever published by WotC (certainly the worst I've ever actually read), it's especially notable and egregious that the subplot of the evil cult leader using Charm Person to control his kidnapped teenage sex slaves is the most well written part of the book. :(
Well you didn't really 'convince him' you were his friend, you have used magic to essentially change his behaviour against his will temporarily and be open to doing your bidding. When he comes too again its fight time. Had you convinced him by lies and deception then that shows a bit more malice.
Is that any more evil than say 'Color Spray' or 'Sleep' followed by a coup-de-grace?
|
If you were in the military, and they invented a device to shoot a guy in a watchtower behind a compound at a range to imbed a mind control chip in his body, then you flip open a laptop and with arrow keys move the guy around and spacebar jump him around, in order to have the guy kill off most of his fellow soldiers in the base before you send your own fellow soldiers in to finish the job, would they call you evil?
I mean, your fellow dudes have wives at home, kids in college, etc.
Why is the freaking wizard with charm person always EEEEEEEEVIL? for pickles' sake, his fellow pyromaniac buddy from the evocation school always gets medals for doing the exact same shytte, but with more collateral damage (yes, he kills or hurts innocents in his freakin blast radiuses and/or burns freakin buildings down trying to take one or two guys...
sigh
Topic says it all.
It seems to me that using Charm Person in this way would be evil. I can only hope that one more eloquent than I can put this thought to words.
I did pretty much exactly this thing with a Lawful Good character in a game recently, so that's probably as strong of an endorsement as I can give that I don't think it is, necessarily, evil.
Context:
Dude was evil and a bandit. I was the lawful authority charged with dispensing permanent justice to said bandits. It was my job to kill him, but I also needed to find out where his superiors were hiding.
Why is the freaking wizard with charm person always EEEEEEEEVIL? for pickles' sake, his fellow pyromaniac buddy from the evocation school always gets medals.
If the military had a mind control device, there would be more concerns than military casualties.
On average, taking away someone's free will is an evil act because all of a sudden, the person becomes a meat puppet that does its master's bidding, and normally that bidding not only goes against the person's character, but also may be an evil act in and of itself, so you force another person to commit evil, even if they don't want to, and otherwise wouldn't.
Now, that's not the only way Compulsion magic can be used, but it's definably the simplest.
Furthermore, that evoker isn't getting a medal if he's careless and burns down the town, there might even be a good chance he'll get run out of town.
All forms of magic have a great variety in how it can be used and abused, if the Compulsion Wizard is getting looked down upon and feared, it's probably got just as much to do with play group and role-play as it does with what's actually going on.
Lets swap some terms around like the term 'Fireball' and 'Evoker' for something like 'Fragmentation Grenade' and 'Marine'.
his fellow pyromaniac buddy 'Marines' always gets medals for doing the exact same shytte, but with more collateral damage (yes, he kills or hurts innocents in his freakin 'Fragmentation Grenade' blast radiuses and/or burns freakin buildings down trying to take one or two guys...
How many medals would he be getting again?
Oh a court martial?
Exactly my point Shifty: D&D is the only place that elevates bomb maniacs over finesse/tactical infiltrators/manipulators.
Not at my table...
It's the number of players (and by extension GM's) who get all flame happy and handwave consequences. Actually lessens the game imo.
Exactly my point Shifty: D&D is the only place that elevates bomb maniacs (i.e. fireball wizards) over finesse/tactical infiltrators/manipulators (i.e. mind control wizards).
Thanks for supporting my view! :)
Wut? Nothing in the rules does this.
Also, mind control doesn't require any more finesse than bombs.
Hell I'd argue that bombs require more finesse than strait up mind control because you have to make sure that the explosion doesn't end up killing your own dudes too.
when you as weak in melee as the wizard spells like sleep and charm person provide a method of escape and evasion of combat.
Using them to kill is the choice of the caster and a question of alignment and survival.
Survival trumps morality every time.
|
My Paladin would have no hesitation stepping up and killing a charmed person assuming he was Evil.
My Paladin would also have no issue getting the jump on a bad guy and stabbing him in the back, nor would he have a problem killing evil while it was busy doing a whore.
I am not some duelist who needs the enemy to be standing armed and aware before I fight them. My duty is the protection of innocents and I shall do that at all costs - giving evil a 'fair chance' is putting innocents at more risk as for the sake of 'fairness' I am giving them a better chance of winning. My honour is not at risk based on how I dispatch Evil - the exception being slow and painful torture, or extending the pain for no reason other than sadistic satisfaction.
If someone is Charmed into being the Wizards friend, is me swiftly and decisively running my sword through them anymore evil than letting the wizard toy with the charmed target? Making them do whatever he wants, sending him on a hopeless and dangerous run for miles?
Just like while I am lawful, if I know someone is evil and has been actively causing the suffering of innocents, I have no issue breaking and entering their house to find them or proof of their deeds - The law is there to protect the innocent, not get in the way of Justice or prevent Evil getting what it deserves.
My Paladin would have no hesitation stepping up and killing a charmed person assuming he was Evil.
My Paladin would also have no issue getting the jump on a bad guy and stabbing him in the back, nor would he have a problem killing evil while it was busy doing a whore.Just like while I am lawful, if I know someone is evil and has been actively causing the suffering of innocents, I have no issue breaking and entering their house to find them or proof of their deeds - The law is there to protect the innocent, not get in the way of Justice or prevent Evil getting what it deserves.
Well... Being a vigilante is a chaotic behaviour you know ?
"the end justify the mean" is a chaotic behaviour too...
So it depends highly of the settings, if you are an appointed law-enforcer in the area then there's no problem with you acts, if you are no more than the average citizen tell me how your character would react if someone thinking he's evil break in his house and began searching everywhere, using violence to restrain him ? :)
It really depends of where you are, if there's a way to refer to a local authority no loyal good characters should take justice in his hands (maybe fanatic character can, but it's something else, usually fanatics ends being at best LN, usually more LE ;) ) but they should at least try to ask the local authority to take action first... If the local authority are corrupted or are too lazy to act then you could maybe act yourself... But if you don't even try to ask for legal authority to act "cause you know, authority sucks here" then you are chaotic... :p
Of course it can be a good deed if the guys are truly evil but it's a chaotic good behaviour... :)
If you were in the military, and they invented a device to shoot a guy in a watchtower behind a compound at a range to imbed a mind control chip in his body, then you flip open a laptop and with arrow keys move the guy around and spacebar jump him around, in order to have the guy kill off most of his fellow soldiers in the base before you send your own fellow soldiers in to finish the job, would they call you evil?
Like most military act, this would be a neutral act... As a military you obey the orders, you don't have to think on the morality of your acts... That is provided you don't enjoy the killing too much and take great pleasure in killing those guys... ;)
In D&D it's even simplier than that, if these guys you kill were truly evil I would go as far as saying it was a good deed, if they were good men then it's an evil act...
In D&D gods decide what is good and bad, it's simple : killing a truly evil person is a good act, killing a neutral/good person is an evil act. A truly Evil person killing other Evil person will become good at a point, because by killing Evil person he tip the balance in favor of Good... :)
The manner you kill the person is not relevant for the good/evil balance, it's relefvant for the lawful/chaotic balance... :)
Like most military act, this would be a neutral act... As a military you obey the orders, you don't have to think on the morality of your acts... That is provided you don't enjoy the killing too much and take great pleasure in killing those guys... ;)
Heard of the Hague?
Nuremburg trials?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
Might need to get a bit better informed about matters military methinks :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like most military act, this would be a neutral act... As a military you obey the orders, you don't have to think on the morality of your acts... That is provided you don't enjoy the killing too much and take great pleasure in killing those guys... ;)Heard of the Hague?
Nuremburg trials?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
Might need to get a bit better informed about matters military methinks :p
Well, in nuremberg the german soldier guarding the entrance of the camp was not passed on trials... It was the guys that decided to do those horrible thnigs that were judged... ;)
The Vietnamese massacre was not ordered by the unit's hierarchy, and there's a huge difference between killing and raping and torture... :)
Killing in a war is not a crime, raping and torture are... In the army if a general ask you to kill someone you don't ask "why should I kill him ?", you obey... And if this guy you killed was an innocent you're not responsible, the general who gave you the order is...
In time of war discussing an order will surely send you to a martial court (where YOU have to prove you have good reason to disobey ;) )
|
|
Well... Being a vigilante is a chaotic behaviour you know ?"the end justify the mean" is a chaotic behaviour too...
So it depends highly of the settings, if you are an appointed law-enforcer in the area then there's no problem with you acts, if you are no more than the average citizen tell me how your character would react if someone thinking he's evil break in his house and began searching everywhere, using violence to restrain him ? :)
It really depends of where you are, if there's a way to refer to a local authority no loyal good characters should take justice in his hands (maybe fanatic character can, but it's something else, usually fanatics ends being at best LN, usually more LE ;) ) but they should at least try to ask the local authority to take action first... If the local authority are corrupted or are too lazy to act then you could maybe act yourself... But if you don't even try to ask for legal authority to act "cause you know, authority sucks here" then you are chaotic... :p
Correct. Smply breaking into a house without persuing proper channels first is Chaotic - and lazy. As a Paladin you would go to the authorities first and explain the situation, in most situations a Paladins reputation would mean the authority would give the go ahead, but if the law is corrupted then I have no issue moving on without their permission - as opposed to many who seem to feel that as their Char is lawful they can never go ahead with a sensible solution offered by the party. Everyone has their own way of playing a Paladin and if that's how they want to that is fine, bt i would consider it narrow minded for them to view this way of playing a Paladin as 'wrong'
Of course, as far as I am concerned, as a Paladin the protection of the innocent is my priority above all else. While being Lawful is an important part of my character, I am willing to face the consequences of my actions if they result in a vigilante action in order to save people
Charm does not change the nature of the target, it uses magic to temporarily force a change in their behavior. By this description it is morally identical to sleep or any other offensive spell for that matter. The answer is imo that killing with charm is exactly as moral is any other form of killing, and that depends on the motive and the target and the circumstances.
The Vietnamese massacre was not ordered by the unit's hierarchy, and there's a huge difference between killing and raping and torture... :)
Yet twenty six of them were charged for doing just that as they obeyed the order from their commander. So once again, you might want to have a bit of a longer think about how all that works out...
Actually, any Soldier, right down to the freshest recruit can refuse to obey an order to kill 'unlawfully'. If they DO carry out the order they can be charged. So you are flat out wrong. LOAC is your friend.
Correct. Smply breaking into a house without persuing proper channels first is Chaotic - and lazy. As a Paladin you would go to the authorities first and explain the situation, in most situations a Paladins reputation would mean the authority would give the go ahead, but if the law is corrupted then I have no issue moving on without their permission - as opposed to many who seem to feel that as their Char is lawful they can never go ahead with a sensible solution offered by the party. Everyone has their own way of playing a Paladin and if that's how they want to that is fine, bt i would consider it narrow minded for them to view this way of playing a Paladin as 'wrong'
Of course, as far as I am concerned, as a Paladin the protection of the innocent is my priority above all else. While being Lawful is an important part of my character, I am willing to face the consequences of my actions if they result in a vigilante action in order to save people
I agree, a paladin is not a Solamnic Knight (The class described in the AD&D Dragonlance Adventures book ;) ) who are LN so bound by their code they forgot to think about it and apply it to the letter.
There's two things that define a paladin characters : he's good and he's lawful... You can emphasize one aspect over the other, but not forget it completely as this is a sure way to fall (and being too lawful can be a sure way to die :p ).Well, I usually use the 4 paladins class (paldin LG, Freedom Paladin CB, Tyranny Paladin LE and Anti Paladin CE) and ask them to choose a deity, it's easier this way I think... ;)
Even like that none of my players choose to play one... I like to play one from time to time but usually I play the "White Knight" type, refusing rewards, trying to spare people whenever possible, trying to "reform" the evil people (with non lethal damage if necessary :p ) and asking for a first blood duel every now and then... :D
Other players loves me and hates me at the same time, he is a pain in the ass but give great roleplay opportunities... :p
It depends on the style of the game.
In my campaign, the bard's used charm person to lead people to the authorities, not to a quick death. If the DM's flexible enough to actually role play on the fly, then yes, using charm person to kill someone is an evil act. If it's a beer and pretzels, kick down the door style game, then, no it's not an evil act. Nobody's going to have the patience for the role playing necessary to use charm person in a good manner.
|
|
Meh....charm is not that big of a deal...you KNOW that it will soon end and that the guy who right now thinks you're his best friend will try to stick the pointy end of your sword into you, because he will no longer think that you're his best friend. Because you never were one to start with. Why would it be wrong to kill a man who you know will try his best to kill you? If somebody tried to kill me, i would try to kill them right back, as cpt. Reynolds once very wisely said. I have no mercy or compassion for people who want to end me. If they fail at that, they will die by my hand.
|
|
I hold the belief that a Paladin can Smite Evil in a Good Aligned fashion (such as during a fight that the Paladin didn't start, like a devil-manipulated army attacking a city) or in an Evil Aligned fashion (such as sneaking into the evil wizard's bedroom and smiting him in his sleep), and that the distinction between the two entirely rests upon the motivation for the killing and the means by which the death is delivered.
My Paladin is very much a hunter of Evil. It is a disease that plagues the world and must be extinguished. They have no rights as they forfeit these when they started doing their sinister activities.
In the above example I would have no issue sneaking into the bedroom and killing the wizard in his sleep - nor would I waste Smite to do so when I could simply slit his throat. To me that is not evil aligned, it is getting the job done. Awake the Wizard could have cast invis, teleport - gone beyond my reach, how many innocents die or suffer by the time I find him again? All because I found it distateful killing a sleeping man?
Now, if I slit his throat pulled down my pants and teabagged him as he lay dying, that is going beyond the 'what is necessary' and is now going away from doing what needs to be done for the good of the people and a more evil aligned act (that's right people, Teabagging is EVIL!)
killing an evil NPC regardless of the circumstances is a good/neutral act not an evil one, such are the clear cut ways of PF
Not in the rules, and not in practice in most games I played/witnessed.
Good people kill out of necessity, and circustances, such as protecting the innocent or to bring justice. Killing someone JUST BECAUSE it's evil, it's evil or chaotic, not good. Otherwise, a paladin entering a town would just turn on detect evil and slaughter anybody that signal as evil.
if you want to argue morality then adventures who slay ANY monster who just happens to cross their path is an evil act.
If the monster is attacking them, whether the critter it is evil or not it's irrelevant (I mean, they are acting in self defense). If the monster poses no threat, killing it just because "just happens to cross their path" does not sound goodish, unless is a type of monster which is always evil and known to be very dangerous anyway or is not sentient and it's killed for food etc.
Let's not confuse playing styles with alignments issues. I know that often, games are played without much moral concerns and are about killing the bad guy. There's nothing wrong with that. You just quickly label the opponent according to type (Goblin --> kill, bandit--> kill etc).
However, when someone opens a thread about a specific situation, it means that moral concerns are important for the game is in and wants detail. In these cases a more articulate answer is needed. Good and evil ppl act differently.
As to answer the OP, It depends on circumstances, and especially, whether it was necessary or not to kill the guy after him being charmed. Also how much the NPC was dangerous is also a factor. A brute that enjoys killing and has already escaped from prison is the primary candidate for such tricks.
Is using Charm Person in combat, then slaughtering the chap afterwards evil?
Loaded question alert!
You might as well ask:
Is using Charm Person in combat, then RIPPING THE PULSATING HEART OUT OF the chap afterwards evil?
Running a bard built specifically to be a kinda crap enchanter. Has used charm person in combat once. Told a red shirt guarding a slaving operation to stand down, basically, don't hurt me coz I am very squishy while the alchemist ripped one of his friends to shreds. All the things I tried to get him to do, other than "please, put your sword down, you're scaring me" would have failed, my GM warned.
Used fascination and suggestion to negate an encounter once. Surly thug wanted to penetrate my stomach with a short sword and steal my money and 200 gold worth of mundane items I had just bought at the market. I told him to go home and think about the direction his life was taking.
Charm person is incredibly limited. The language of the spell specifically says that once you attempt to hurt the creature in any way, the spell ends. Suggestion won't allow you to suggest anything that would be harmful to the NPC either, much less suicidal. Depending on the GM, this could be as specific as not allowing you to order them to go tell the barbarian king to stuff it in his own court, or deliver a message you don't think will go over well with whatever entity.
I really don't know how you could use enchantments to do evil things... But then, I play good characters most times.