Gnomes, Lizardfolk and Neutral Good


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the gnome turning on his bard friend i could see as ok, actually.
(Had to change this in an edit.)
I think many judge what is right and what is wrong,based on our modern concepts, a bit too much.
Many of our cultures that we would have believed were lawful good were fine with murdering men,women and children of neighboring enemies.
Look at the Crusades.
There were a ton of tortures that are still viewed as, well, just plain sick and wrong these days, but it was said to be done in the name of God.

This is somewhat like Mammy and her kids in the Runelords path.
They were evil through and through, but you kinda couldn't help feeling a little bad for them based on their child-like qualities, but our party whole slaughtered them and didn't look back.
So, a gnome freaking out over an enemy that his race has fought with for hundreds or even thousands of years is not too far off.
Especially when a party member tries to defend that enemy when they are running away.
Heck, my druid would have likely spit on the bard and not healed him at all, even told him to stay out of the way when the right decisions needed to be made in the name of a greater good. That or he would have pitied the bard for his lack of critical thinking in letting the enemy get away to go and warn their friends, either way...
All lizardfolk are evil and should never be given quarter under any circumstances.
This is where the Dm could have fun with a good aligned Lizardfolk that, while not fully trusted, has been given the charge by,say the head of a good cleric order to guide the party through an area of other evil lizardfolk.
Ooo, the roleplaying can be fun on this one.

Something a Dm told me years ago about DM'ing has stuck to this day, that being cause and effect.

That evil wizard you killed may have a paladin brother that loved him dearly and will seek retribution for his brothers death.
He may understand why his brother was killed, but in his eyes, anyone can change, his brother just needed more time.
Heck, look at Raistlin in the dragonlance books... Evil!!

Also, remember that in nature, many animals will eat their prey while it is still alive and screaming, see lions and large cats.
Heck the same lions kill the lioness's cubs of another male lion just so she will be ready to mate faster.
Nature is cruel and not always butterflies and bluejays.

Had to edit this post a lot the more i thought about it.


An alignment change won't do much to this character, unless you decide he's being too chaotic as well as evil.

On the other hand, you determine what the effect of spells, abilities, and magic items are in your game. You also dictate how Outsiders and other alignment-sensitive creatures in the world react to PCs. He can swear he's stabbing innocents to death in the name of good all he wants; you control how many damage dice get tossed when he takes an 'Unholy Blight' spell to the face. Just be glad you don't have any Paladins in the party.

If his antics are upsetting any of the other players - I'm guessing the Bard player isn't okay with how things are going - you might need a more direct intervention. Firm, but friendly.


We are really getting somewhere. Some nicely thought out points and positions.

The player absolutely chooses their actions and what their character is, but the DM shapes the world, and determines what the alignments involve. So I disagree with Sean, they should not be able to determine the alignments based on their actions (I am NG, I will always be an NG character no matter what I do), or present an alignment as something it isn't (Ng is execution, execution for all our enemies *war cry*). That is the player trying to be the dm, and I think this player really doesn't like anything he isn't in control of.

"Act evil, and your aligment may shift. Them`s the breaks."
Yep, that was my end point in the arguments with the player; perhaps I should have thrown that out there and less waffled about.

As for the poor gnome being raised in a xenophobic culture, and he is doomed to repeat it, he comes from quite a peaceful village of gnomes, who haven't been fighting trogs in any great numbers for a long time. They are mostly druids and commoners, isolated, smart enough to stay hidden. The trogs are spread out on the upper layers of the darklands and have only recently pushed back up in southern Isger, in my game. So here is an example of the player breaking off from his peaceful druidic background, and saying, nope, I'll play the comic relief, the curious gnome whom follows the pcs, but once I find trogs, it's murder time. DM's thoughts: but... but your people are quite peaceful?

On the LG, NG discussion, NG is always presented as a more "true good" and a purer form of good, so it seems that is more good than LG or CG. In other games with the equalizer, we as uni students have quite a lot of fun with the lawful alignment, seeing how it compromises the good, the overall welfare, or seeing how it can damage and injure as it tries to be lawful through the games. CG becomes a more easy form of heroic good than LG, because Lg can get restrained by authorities and the powers that be, or be shamefully overzealous and prone to attacking what it considers as evil.

On the gnome, yes I consider he has been more chaotic evil than neutral evil. The pure hate and unwillingness to stop or reap profit, quite a bit distant to the shady and greedy neutral evil. Theft, robbery, killing anyone if they get in your way = neutral evil. Wishing for genocide, having no honour, no attempts at redemption or taking prisoners, not caring even to try and talk = chaotic evil.

Thanks for the post pizza. Yes, a paladin can excuse evil if there are personal allegiances in play, family love, and insist, he just needed more time! I almost got him to church! Yes the roleplaying can be fun, that's why I'm playing.


The character was role playing a game mechanic. Thats easier to fix than someone that doesn't want to rp at all or that thinks RP stops when the mat comes out.


Minor game mechanic tops alignment, lol.


Quote:
Minor game mechanic tops alignment, lol.

The minor game mechanic is easy to understand. Alignment is harder... especially given the interaction of the two

Quote:
Tearing up cowering beaten foes whom are begging to be spared is not good.

Well that depends. What were they doing before they were begging?

The mere act of being helpless and begging for mercy is not sufficient grounds to get it from good creatures. Good societies can and will execute people for heinous crimes in a D&D world.

Probably the most accepted exception to the rules is faking surrender. You fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. You risk your life to stop combat with someone and trust that they're going to behave, refusing to press your advantage. If someone takes advantage of your good nature and tries to get you killed for it, you don't have to hold the idiot ball and think "well mayby they really mean it this time". charlie brown always gets up to kick the football again. You... maybe not.

Likewise, someone tossing fire balls into an orphanage and then shooting the orphans when they run out with a crossbow can't just go "ermm.. don't hurt me I surrender" just because he's out of ammo. It might not be lawful to just hack off their head, but its well within the framework of chaotic good. (and even a lawful society might be willing to let you off on any pretext they can find)

What you have here though, is the gnome in the middle of stealing the Trogs stuff. They don't have the moral grounds to deny surrender.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
The player absolutely chooses their actions and what their character is, but the DM shapes the world, and determines what the alignments involve. So I disagree with Sean, they should not be able to determine the alignments based on their actions (I am NG, I will always be an NG character no matter what I do), or present an alignment as something it isn't (Ng is execution, execution for all our enemies *war cry*).

I figured that was something that most people would disagree with me on, no worries there. The thing is that I don't think you are wrong, per se, I think the fight over it is worse than the egregious action on the players part.

Do I think this player chose for his NG character to perform not only a single evil act but a whole series of them? Yep, I sure do.

But taking that choice of interpretation away from the player and just in the DMs hand is something that will not add to the fun of the players around the game table.

Now, I could be wrong here and the other players in the group are seething about this, but your post didn't seem to indicate that, and you even mentioned they were on his side for some of it.

To me rule 0 is not 'the GM is always right' but 'the GM needs to do what will be the most fun for the most people.' I am not convinced from your narrative that having this argument and taking this player's, obviously wrong, interpretation of his alignment away from him really adds to the fun of the players around the table.

That is why I would have questioned it, made my points, but left it ultimately under the player's control.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
That is the player trying to be the dm, and I think this player really doesn't like anything he isn't in control of.

I don't know that I would go so far as to say the player is trying to be GM (again, this is my perception from your description, reality could easily be different). However, I would fully and completely agree that this is very much a problem player and that is the real core issue that needs to be addressed here.

I would personally, as the GM, try and give it a few days and then step back and ask myself if this is causing issues with fun for the players in the group? Remember this needs to include YOU as you need to be having fun as well. Is this the only instance of this kind of thing from this player? Will it come up again in this campaign? Is it worth you as the GM changing the campaign? Is it something that is much more pervasive and you need to look at excising the player (who is likely a friend) from the group... a REALLY hard thing to do, but one that you will find makes life and the game a lot better once you do it... the sooner the better. Maybe remedial steps could be taken first...

I don't know... there are a lot of questions there I would be asking myself but that first step of taking a little time then coming back to think about it is key. Remember you are not the sole decision maker of the group as well... you may need to talk to other members of your group to get their take on things.

Anyway... it's likely a tough situation and this is the tip of the iceberg. If that's the case, I feel for you... been there, and it's not fun. Hopefully I am wrong though and this is a one time thing.

Sean Mahoney


BigNorseWolf wrote:
The character was role playing a game mechanic. Thats easier to fix than someone that doesn't want to rp at all or that thinks RP stops when the mat comes out.

It's also something that is somewhat easy to fix. Just let the guy know that based on his own background given and whatnot, that he can tone it down a bit and things should be ok, if not, his animal companion may start to show signs of distrust..

Little things like that can also be fun to roleplay and also, heck what's more fun than eventually stating to the group "Um, guys? I seem to be a bit out of touch. How much? well, i can't cast my spells very well, my summons are not lasting as long and i think things just seem out of whack"
Go go gadget atonement adventure!!!
Yeah role playing games can be a lot of fun.


This is a horrible analogy, but I find dealing with this type of thing much like parenting my toddler. I have never lost a fight with my toddler, not because I am supremely patient or he does whatever I say with out question, but because I only choose the fights that I care about winning. There's a lot more of them with a toddler, to be sure, but it is kind of the same thing here.

Does you letting him do this teach him or the other players a bad precedent?

Does you coming down with the hammer on this mean you will have a pissed off player/friend in and out of game?

There's lots of questions there as to is it worth the fight. I am a big fan of military strategies like those employed by Hannible in Italy when he was harassing Rome... don't pick a fight were winning still means loosing. I believe that is called a Phyrric Victory?


Of course, another thought that occurs to me would be to do a one-shot side adventure for this group where they play scaly-kind... maybe they saw this gnome cut down a loved one and want to repay the favor... could be fun... in an evil GM kind of way.

Sean Mahoney


I love it how if you break the druid code really severely, your animal companion legs it, that is funny.

Yeah I'm not letting this guy get off, it has been noted down, it has been discussed. If he does keep attending I'll be keeping this in mind, and who knows, maybe he will go CE, maybe he wont. There is a larger game to continue with, as much as alignment can be argued with till the end of time (although the book is quite clear).

Anyone else got any stories on alignment?


How about this

Gnome cleric of Apsu,

Replaced hatred and defensive training with warden of nature.

+2 to diplomacy with scaly kind via trait.


3.5, I'm really curious about what your other players think of the gnome's actions. Obviously the bard would be pretty peeved, but what about the others? Where they all "YEAH!!! KILL!!! KILL!!!" or "Maybe would should listen to them?" I seem to remember the barbarian was killing the trogs as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, here are some random thoughts on the situation.

Alignment
For starters, this is one of the reasons I don't use alignments in my campaigns. I've been DMing for 27 years and I've found that only in the most extreme cases do players even pay attention to their alignments and even less often do they play them well. Typically I will ask during character creation what a character's alignment is, so I can at least have a baseline to know what I'm dealing with, but after that there is no need for labels - he IS how you play him (which I find is most often chaotic good). Now this does require me to adjust a bit with certain spells and abilities that are alignment based. Except in the most extreme/obvious cases (ie demons, devils, angels) detecting someone's alignment is subjective and based just as much on who is casting the spell as the target. Good and Evil isn't black and white in real life and shouldn't be in the game either.

Arguably most things that characters do in D&D/Pathfinder are pretty despicable and would rarely be seen as "good" in the eyes of our own society. The basic gist of the game has always been "go into the monster's layer (the term monster being fairly suggestive), kill it and take all it's stuff. Even when the killing is "justified" due to some evil act perpetrated by the "monster" the base mentality necessary to go out of your way to kill another intelligent creature is pretty sociopathic, and to do so with the expectation of compensation is even more morally bankrupt. So, when we talk about good and evil in a fantasy game we really can't base things on what our current society believes.

Troglodytes
The bestiary describes Troglodytes as being feral, Chaotic Evil and having an average intelligence of 8. It's highly unlikely that they'd surrender at all, let along beg for mercy. In fact the concept of mercy is likely to be completely foreign to them and, in their minds, would be equivalent to accepting death.

If you're intent was to play these Troglodytes as neutral, you needed to make this clear to the players way in advance, especially the gnome whose racial hatred is based on the troglodytes in the bestiary, not the neutrally aligned ones in your campaign setting. And before you say anything, yes, it is possible for a troglodyte (as written) to not be chaotic evil, but it's not likely that an entire society of them would break from character like that.

Taking Prisoners
So, setting aside the fact that the Troglodytes were being played completely out of character, what did the part intend to do with their prisoners? Let's investigate the options:

1) Cart them around with them for the rest of the campaign?
Talk about inconvenient, not to mention dangerous. Even if the Trogs didn't escape or try to kill the party the first time they were untied so they could pee you'd still have to resort to one of the other options eventually.

2)Drop them off in the nearest city for a trial or permanent incarceration?
Now we're getting back into "what is evil". The only wrong these Troglodytes have done (that can be proven) is defend their home from raiders intent on stealing all of their stuff "to get through the winter". In what universe is that considered "good"? And what's the likelyhood that the troglodytes would get a fair trial, or a trial at all? They'd likely just be killed or let go depending on which town you were in.

3)Kill them. Clearly you consider this evil, so we'll rule this one out.

4) Let them go. This is really the only truly "good" option and probably the stupidest when taking into account the nature of troglodytes. Then again, doing the right thing isn't the same as doing the smart thing.

Clearly taking them prisoner to begin with was, not only unlikely to be an option to begin with, but a not very well thought out plan.

Player vs Player Combat
This is simply not cool and should really be the focus of your concern. Unless the bard player told the gnome player "you should totally try to kill me for trying to stop you" there's no room in a group of friends for that to be an ok thing to do.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Since I remembered the description of kobolds in the 3.5 supplement Races of the Dragon and their hatred of gnomes (going back to a conflict between Garl Glittergold and the chief deity of kobolds, Kurtulmak) I checked the 3.5 PHB. And indeed, the article on gnomes states that gnomes have a racial hatred of goblinoids and kobolds. It makes sense insofar as all these races are of roughly the same size category.

That got changed in Pathfinder. The Pathfinder Core Rulebook gives gnomes a racial hatred for goblinoids and humanoids of reptilian subtype which is definitely a much broader take on this gnomish characteristic: it encompasses also lizardfolk, troglodytes, etc. Gnomes of Golarion explains that this hatred probably has its roots in the time of the gnomish arrival on Golarion, provoked by experiences gnomes made with members of these races.

So, in summary, the hatred of all of reptilian humanoids is not Golarion specific, but mandated by the core rules.

The actions of the player are not in accordance to his alignment. Whereas an evil character would have no qualms about slaughtering reptiloids indiscriminately, a good character should able to control his actions and reactions in regard to his emotions and upbringing. He would be careful and suspicious against troglodytes, but he would and should not murder them in cold blood, especially when they surrender.


Sean Mahoney wrote:


But taking that choice of interpretation away from the player and just in the DMs hand is something that will not add to the fun of the players around the game table.

Now, I could be wrong here and the other players in the group are seething about this, but your post didn't seem to indicate that, and you even mentioned they were on his side for some of it.

To me rule 0 is not 'the GM is always right' but 'the GM needs to do what will be the most fun for the most people.' I am not convinced from your narrative that having this argument and taking this player's, obviously wrong, interpretation of his alignment away from him really adds to the fun of the players around the table.

That is why I would have questioned it, made my points, but left it ultimately under the player's control.

The problem is, the player is not objective about what his alignment is. Or, he doesn't care, he just wants to do whatever he wants and have a specific alignment for game purposes (to show up as LG around Pally's for example).

Your method would allow this same player we are discussing to run around, murdering anyone he chose to and justifying it as 'They helped Trogs' or 'They don't kill trogs, the friend of my enemy is my enemy' and 'You are either with me or against me'. This last one seems to be his justification for attacking his own party.

If he has control over his own alignment via your interpretation, then he can perform any act, no matter how heinous, and call it LG. He can take an orphanage full of children, sacrifice them to summon up a major demon, and give it the kids souls in exchange for it going out and attacking every Trog within 100 miles. And that's a LG act because by his standards, anything justifies the means when it comes to ridding the world of Trogs. And his alignment would never change, and the first Paladin that scanned him would read LG or NG or whatever alignment he wanted. That's just not going to work for long and it will tear a game apart.

The player has the ultimate control over his alignment, his actions in character. It is his actions in character that control his alignment. If he wants to be NG, then he does things a NG would do. If he wants to be CN, then he does things a CN would do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kobolds are my friends, the hatred is not mandated by a damn thing...

I traded in my hatred an have friendship instead.

Racists!


Erky Timbers wrote:

Kobolds are my friends, the hatred is not mandated by a damn thing...

I traded in my hatred an have friendship instead.

Racists!

So like you have a +1 bonus on diplomacy checks against goblinoids and reptillian humanoids and they start one category friendlier then normal toward you? That's actually pretty cool, and would fit well with a druid who wants to 'be a friend to all living things'.


Matt Gwinn wrote:

Taking Prisoners

So, setting aside the fact that the Troglodytes were being played completely out of character, what did the part intend to do with their prisoners? Let's investigate the options:

1) Cart them around with them for the rest of the campaign?
Talk about inconvenient, not to mention dangerous. Even if the Trogs didn't escape or try to kill the party the first time they were untied so they could pee you'd still have to resort to one of the other options eventually.

2)Drop them off in the nearest city for a trial or permanent incarceration?
Now we're getting back into "what is evil". The only wrong these Troglodytes have done (that can be proven) is defend their home from raiders intent on stealing all of their stuff "to get through the winter". In what universe is that considered "good"? And what's the likelyhood that the troglodytes would get a fair trial, or a trial at all? They'd likely just be killed or let go depending on which town you were in.

3)Kill them. Clearly you consider this evil, so we'll rule this one out.

4) Let them go. This is really the only truly "good" option and probably the stupidest when taking into account the nature of troglodytes. Then again, doing the right thing isn't the same as doing the smart thing.

Clearly taking them prisoner to begin with was, not only unlikely to be an option to begin with, but a not very well thought out plan.

I disagree on option 4. Letting creatures you know to be evil go free is not good. To do so is to allow them to continue their depredations. Any character with enough intelligence to understand that actions have consequences implicitly shoulders responsibility for the expected behavior of those they liberate. Only a character whose position on one end or the other of the law/chaos axis is more important to them than good can justify letting someone they believe to be chaotic evil go when they could, without risking harm to anyone else, end that evil.

That leaves option 3 or the equivalent of not giving evil opponents the opportunity to surrender in the first place as the only viable option. When there's only one practical non-stupid option there's no choice. When there's no choice there's no morality. Any forced choice is by definition neutral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How many Robins have to beaten to near death and then blown up and how many Batgirls have to be crippled and possibly sexually assaulted, before killing the Joker is appropriate?


pres man wrote:
How many Robins have to beaten to near death and then blown up and how many Batgirls have to be crippled and possibly sexually assaulted, before killing the Joker is appropriate?

Which movies are you watching?

I want to see those!


Oh... Under the Red Hood... My brother was watching that a few weeks back... ;_; Joker, he killed Robin...


I'm more in line with mdt and Lanx.

Replying to Matt, the trogs had popped their heads out from the darklands, taken over a tower under the directive of leadership and most certainly can break and surrender. They are sentient, they are pretty nasty, but no where does it say they are unbreakable or that they won't surrender if they cannot flee. CE isn't fearless.

I don't consider killing them as evil, so point 3 is off the mark. I consider killing surrendering, cowering foes as evil and most certainly not heroic. If it was more even, they'd have fought to the death, but one combat really went one-sided so two surrendered. Is this accepting death? Perhaps, but it is interesting to note, a player let one go at one point (the fighter barb woodcutter) and is somewhat receptive to the bard's pacifist message, whom certainly wants them spared, but that's neutral good, not eager to kill.

On it being nonsensical and just sensible to kill the evil troglodytes, if you never accept surrender, you will never redeem or befriend an enemy. Won't encounter another perspective, improve your honour (good fight opponent, I think you have me today, I yield) or be able to establish respect with former foes whom surrender. Mercs or honourable foes can stop a brawl and get along, it is possible. Not everything has to be to the death.

So the party is certainly not behind the gnome (save the woodcutter), which is going to make an interesting game, since they so desperately need his healing... but he's crazy.

Yes, I'll list the relations.

Boris the woodcutter fighter/barb: gets on with Henri the bard, almost fought Rosehawka over a healing potion dispute. Getting close with the druid.
Henri the bard: gets on with most save the druid, whom harmed him, rejected his suggestions. Wonder if the bard will cut the druid's throat while he sleeps.
Bagg the druid: gets on well with Balenar the new ranger, gets on with the woodcutter, backs his interests so far. Has incapacitated the bard, lectured the others on the necessity to kill all trogs and hunt them. Has rejected pacifism or negotiation instigated by the bard. Provides some healing. Has threatened the fighter.
Balenar the ranger: was freed, fought hard, went down hard. Almost dead.
Rosehawka Smith the fighter: has some competitiveness with the bard and gives him a bit of grief via banter, now not getting on with the druid and Boris. Injured the companion of the druid to stop it harming the bard, has threatened the druid. Druid backed her not getting a healing potion (two were available for the party, she had taken 17 damage).

All now are from different parts of Isger, but pretty close by. Boris is an Ulfen migrant, the fighter and bard are from families that survived the goblin wars, the druid is from a secluded gnomish village.

Survival and dungeon crawling, it strains nerves and relations. They all have family members to support and protect, hence the foraging and raiding.


Sounds like the druid's main strength is healing. Your group is aware that bards also can heal, right? Rangers can also. While these are not as good at healing as druids, which really aren't that great either. What the party needs are several wands of healing. Remove the political power of the druid.


That's an interesting idea, and they are letting the "doctor" get away with a lot.

So far it is a low level game, in the first session they started as level 1 Isgerian commoners. They are now about level 3. They are so far from magic item shops it is not funny (southern rural Isger), not sure Isger has a magic item industry given how hard pressed it is (making Andoranean economies closer) the bard is not into healing or use magic device, and the fighter/barb has a very average con so he heals quite slowly.

They could use the wands, but it ain't a buy magic items to solve problems game, then the forage, get out there and survive elements would be lost, on a wave of rings of sustenance.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

That's an interesting idea, and they are letting the "doctor" get away with a lot.

So far it is a low level game, in the first session they started as level 1 Isgerian commoners. They are now about level 3. They are so far from magic item shops it is not funny (southern rural Isger), not sure Isger has a magic item industry given how hard pressed it is (making Andoranean economies closer) the bard is not into healing or use magic device, and the fighter/barb has a very average con so he heals quite slowly.

They could use the wands, but it ain't a buy magic items to solve problems game, then the forage, get out there and survive elements would be lost, on a wave of rings of sustenance.

True, but some of the cultures they encounter are bound to have wand crafters, as well as the same needs they have. A wand of healing dropped every so often by an evil cleric (they can't spontaneous cast healing after all) is not unreasonable. Also realize that the wands need not be fully charged. During a fight, an evil cleric uses the wand to heal an enemy fighter, "Hey, he's using up our loot, get him!", is always a fun experience.

EDIT: Just to clarify, there are some healing spells on the bard list, so he would not have to need Use Magic Device for those spells.

Bard is often the evil healer for my evil groups I send against parties, because they can cast healing spells and all of their spells are spontaneous.


This wasn't playing a good anything. He was playing a severe personality disorder. Let's go with neutral evil.
If you want a good display of an otherwise good person with some racism going on, watch the Deep Space Nine episode where Worf finds the hidden colony of Romulans & Klingons. There was no brutalizing anyone, least of all his own companions.


wspatterson wrote:

This wasn't playing a good anything. He was playing a severe personality disorder. Let's go with neutral evil.

If you want a good display of an otherwise good person with some racism going on, watch the Deep Space Nine episode where Worf finds the hidden colony of Romulans & Klingons. There was no brutalizing anyone, least of all his own companions.

Let me just add, there may be practical reasons for killing even surrendering trogs. If trogs are a scourge in the land, eating people's children, then it just might be practical to not leave any alive. A trog allowed to live today may be a dead farmer tomorrow. There is still no excuse for attacking another party member, however.


I watched a great YouTube video not too long ago that explained how to deal with players that like to use the 'My character would do that' excuse as justification for some bad behavior in the game. Give them serious in-game consequences. These consequences from the game world should punish the character and as a byproduct the group. This will eventually cause the group to come down on this player as they grow tired of all his bad actions causing them problems.

The player will either knock it off or be kicked out of the group.

Edit:
In the past I have used this technique without really consciously thinking about it. "I will let you do this, but you will reap what you sow. Be prepared." This warning seems to be enough to have the whole group saying "Whoaa! Wait a minute, we are not doing this." :-)


pres man wrote:
How many Robins have to beaten to near death and then blown up and how many Batgirls have to be crippled and possibly sexually assaulted, before killing the Joker is appropriate?

+10 I agree

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lobolusk wrote:
pres man wrote:
How many Robins have to beaten to near death and then blown up and how many Batgirls have to be crippled and possibly sexually assaulted, before killing the Joker is appropriate?

+10 I agree

This is so wickedly funny when put aside Lobolusks' "we're Christians, please gives us books without boobs" that I can't even imagine.

Dark Archive

I actually found this post interesting.

I totally disagree with everyone saying his actions were not good. BECAUSE by the definition that a monster, is not always evil, that means every single time you go into combat you should talk first, just in case there is a chance, that maybe possibly the ogre does not wnat to kill you.
BAH.

the gnomes say they have racial hatred towards scaly kind, like a dwarf hates a goblins. SO if you take away slurs, and fighting etc, then oh my hatred means that he will no longer give cuts in a line.
Or perhaps hatred implies that you must sulk, and brood, and scowl towards the lizard man, but heavens help us if you actually hated an enemy that you suffer hatred for.

suck it up, seriously its not peace love and rainbows, i dont want to have think about killing the green skins, stop taking the fun out of being a hero....or should we all have nerf longswords!


A murderer without honour or some morality, is not a hero.

Heroes do not kill the helpless (and broken, cowering, surrendering troglodytes are the helpless. They might do evil later, they might not if the players take some steps, but the discussion is more complicated then just kill them in all circumstances without a thought--that type of thoughtless uncaring attitude towards killing is chaotic evil, and something a wise druid should be far from, unless neutral evil).

DGRM44, there is sure to be consequences, at least in relations for now.

As an aside I once had a neutral good ranger character called Ryzard. Now he was eager for combat, but he would always make sure foes were foes, and that monsters were evil or out to do horrible things. He'd do this from a bit of a distance, no one says you can't observe or use diplomacy, and he'd be quite ready to use powerful charge and his awl pike if things went bad. He never came close to changing alignment. He cared about the public good, the safety of the people he was protecting. If monsters were trash, he'd take out the trash.

It is however, important to look at what you are throwing onto the pile of corpses, think whether it should be there and not just look to see if they have any valuables.

On this whole goblins are evil thing, was also playing a CG Kelesh ninja in the kingmaker campaign. Muunokhoi the ninja befriended a goblin warlock at one point and travelled around with him for a bit, picked up the goblin language and they did mostly good quests. Later some goblins wanted to move to Freemir, and because Muunokhoi could speak goblin and wasn't such a racist, he could work out, ah, these goblins are wagon makers and wheel fitters, not raiders. Great, we don't have to fight them, welcome goblins! The community was a bit better for it.

Lastly on trogs being a scourge and a killer of farmers and such, reading up on them, they fight and kill each other in internecine wars far more than they fight and kill others. A lot like humans really...


Heroes do what needs doing. Sometimes that does mean killing innocents. Sometimes it means committing treason. Sometimes it means sleeping with the enemy so you can report on their pillow talk. There are murderers and thieves and harlots more worthy than your "honorable" white knights.


I don't often play honourable white knights, as you can see from the ranger and ninja above. A master of ambush can do good, pay attention, determine whom the real foes are without being some honourable white knight.

"Sometimes that does mean killing innocents" means you are not playing a hero. Look up what a hero means, look up the literature, it means a protector of a community, one whom dies or risks death to protect others. They are exceptional, they are selfless, they shouldn't be making excuses for knocking off the good and innocent. Killing those you should have been protecting means you fail at being a hero, by the definition.

If you save the day, but kill innocents, justify it, make excuses, what type of champion are you running?

Dark Archive

Have you neaver heard of "the needs of the many out way the needs of the few."

To argue the point further, and i wont do the killing a few to save many. But really first he has hatred, that should count for something. And perhaps young, blind still with rage, not much time to come to grips with the bigger world.

Another note, one can be "good" to ones own people, and be nasty to others. Elves fighting dark elves, the elves are good, but they still slaughter dark elves.

I cannot agree with your logic, that if you kill innocents ever you are not heroic.

Does that mean the paladin could not siege an evil overlords castle simply because the siege engine may actually kill the kitchen staff accidently, and that would be evil?

I agree honestly with the idea that a constant birrage of killing is idiotic and selfish, and jsut lousy roleplaying if the person is trying to be good.

But the commen earlier about the joker and batman. is batman good if he knowingly spares a murderer who murders again? perhaps. But if he spares that person MANY MANY times, and each time that person goes back out and kills and kills. So you knowingly spared a murderer who will murder again is that good?

You spare the goblins, because they begged for mercy. they then go out and kill a village. You come back to fight them again, again they beg for mercy. Instead of using common sense, you are "good", you spare them. They then go out and kill your uncle on his parked horse.

Are you good? Being good is not an excuse for being stupid. A hero fights monsters, kicks down doors, has some grey areas sure, but really...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Another note, one can be "good" to ones own people, and be nasty to others.

That's the very definition of neutral: when you consider your monkey sphere to be you and yours, but don't extend it to other sentient beings.

Dark Archive

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Another note, one can be "good" to ones own people, and be nasty to others.
That's the very definition of neutral: when you consider your monkey sphere to be you and yours, but don't extend it to other sentient beings.

Monkey sphere?!?!?!?

You win.
I surrender, and by all means you win. LOL. Seriously i laughed so hard at that one that i nearly cried.

BigNorseWolf i never thought in that terms, but then i find sometimes the alignments to be restrictive.

could you nto have a LG paladin that hated elves? Or can a good paladin HATE certain enemies of their faith? like Seluna (spelling) and Rov?

i mean its nto black and white, you can be LG and still hate things, so why could not a LG paladin from andor hate those from Cheliax?

Not that anyone should hate Cheliax, just misunderstood...we are ALL good people, and those who disagree should be shot! cheers.


Monkeysphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

The basic idea is that your brain has only so many people it can consider "Friends". Towards these people you sacrifice to help them, consider their needs with your own, and in general act as if you're good aligned. People outside of that sphere... BLEEP em. Its why a monkey can see a member of his group and pick the lice out of his fur, and then see another member of his same species and hit them in the head with a rock and eat them.

Quote:
could you nto have a LG paladin that hated elves?

Yes, you could. I think a Paladin could even get verbally nasty towards people he doesn't like. He could now however, refuse their surrender , kill them, mow them down etc. People are internally contradicted about their actions all the time, because we all have multiple drives telling us to do different things.

Quote:
Or can a good paladin HATE certain enemies of their faith? like Seluna (spelling) and Rov?

i am a good person. (good)

I will destroy evil (i'm assuming those gods are) - paladin

That doesn't create conflict. Your internal alignment (good) is compatable with your hatred, which is compatable with your solution to evil as a paladin (sharp pointy metal)

Quote:
i mean its nto black and white, you can be LG and still hate things, so why could not a LG paladin from andor hate those from Cheliax?

He can hate, but he cant let his hatred override his good, or he ceases to be good. Comming to realize that some chelaxians are trapped in the system and need help getting out of their situation could be some major character development and role playing potential.

Not that anyone should hate Cheliax, just misunderstood...we are ALL good people, and those who disagree should be shot! cheers.


Hate in the gnomish instant meant, not a dislike, but that he would not even consider taking hostages or talking to them/trading, no matter what they did, or how some of the underlings begged.

So it is not neutral, because it doesn't accept the possibility of getting along. Hostility is the only option, not going separate ways, not parting, not trogs and gnomes living in the great one-ness of the balance.

It is not lawful, because there is no honour, no code, no possibility of trial or rites for the dead, nor respect to the prisoners.

This hate is really extreme. The pure violence of it just screams Chaotic evil to me. If a lawful good paladin acted this way, he might lose his lawfulness and/or his good alignment. As the ex-paladin sits in a cell of penance he screams at the priest, "they were trogs, they all deserve to die, I did what is right". The priest responds "because you do not know how you erred, because you do not see what is wrong with your hate, that is why you are here."


Nos wrote:

could you nto have a LG paladin that hated elves?

I would say absolutely yes, and it would make for good RP.

However, this is not to everyone's tastes. It can cause inter-party strife. (esp if there is an elf in the party....)

Over the years I have GM'ed 75% of the time and played 25%. I tend to play thematic characters and can be troublesome at times. I have to watch myself and make sure that I'm not taking up too much of the game time, or being disruptive with my theme. It is a hard switch to make when the other 75% of the time you've been actively trying to be a thorn in the side of the other players. :P


Groggie wrote:
Nos wrote:

could you nto have a LG paladin that hated elves?

I would say absolutely yes, and it would make for good RP.

However, this is not to everyone's tastes. It can cause inter-party strife. (esp if there is an elf in the party....)

Over the years I have GM'ed 75% of the time and played 25%. I tend to play thematic characters and can be troublesome at times. I have to watch myself and make sure that I'm not taking up too much of the game time, or being disruptive with my theme. It is a hard switch to make when the other 75% of the time you've been actively trying to be a thorn in the side of the other players. :P

I've played a Paladin who ended up hating elves, especially because of the party. Both elves that popped into the party were extremely rude, pompous, psychotic, chaotic, yet very sly. And then he met the clan of elves who were rude and secretive to non-elves, only to learn that they were behind the orc attacks in some insane plan to prepare the city by making them aware. Apparently there were drow about and the reason they didn't just tell people was to hide their shame. My Paladin almost had a BSoD and was about to commit elf genocide, instead I prayed to my goddess not to lose control. >_> I had a bit of OoC elf hate, but it was more of a hate the player who was playing the his muchinkiny elves though...


One comment about gnomes and how Paizo has handled them: as I'm sure at least some of you remember, gnomes used to be essentially small dwarves. A little more nature oriented, perhaps, but they liked to dig in the dirt like their bigger brothers. The whole reptilian hatred thing is really specifically for kobolds, and not really lizardmen and trogs and the like. Why? Because kobolds like to dig in the same dirt and they don't play well with others.
So along comes Pathfinder, and a somewhat new take on gnomes. Less the miniature dwarves and more transplants from the faerie world. Unfortunately, at least in my view, Paizo did an incomplete job of this switch, and we have this somewhat clumsy mishmash of a faerie thing with vestiges of the dwarf still hanging on that don't always make sense. This may not be entirely germane to this conversation, but I think most of us can admit that the kobold is really what was in mind with the hatred thing. I could even see troglodytes being on the list, since they may like digging in the same dirt as the gnomes as well. Lizardmen? Pretty unlikely.
Regardless of his treatment of some npc lizards, your player sounds like a jerk who is trying to use "character traits" to justify his bullying the rest of the party. And the party has the power to quash this crap. If everyone is continuing the have a good time, great. But conflicts between PCs can easily become conflicts between players, and that isn't fun. And this guy pouts and cries because you make a judgement call that isn't in his favor, then perhaps he needs a time out for a while.


Ion raven, I've come across such elves again and again.

I think you are right about the player wspatterson. Such an entitled chap.

Dark Archive

To be honest the way you state his actions now, i would have to side with you. A bit extreme and a bit of a monster. Plus slaughtering everything around, that is not really fun role playing. Sometimes its nice to slaughter a million goblins, but it actually seems like he might just be trying to provke a confrontation.
my view anyhow.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Hate in the gnomish instant meant, not a dislike, but that he would not even consider taking hostages or talking to them/trading, no matter what they did, or how some of the underlings begged.

So it is not neutral, because it doesn't accept the possibility of getting along. Hostility is the only option, not going separate ways, not parting, not trogs and gnomes living in the great one-ness of the balance.

It is not lawful, because there is no honour, no code, no possibility of trial or rites for the dead, nor respect to the prisoners.

This hate is really extreme. The pure violence of it just screams Chaotic evil to me. If a lawful good paladin acted this way, he might lose his lawfulness and/or his good alignment. As the ex-paladin sits in a cell of penance he screams at the priest, "they were trogs, they all deserve to die, I did what is right". The priest responds "because you do not know how you erred, because you do not see what is wrong with your hate, that is why you are here."

I think some of my extreme attitude when it comes to good/evil and whatnot may be from the multitude of movies and books where the good guy refuses to kill the enemy when the enemy is unarmed or beaten only to have that same enemy backstab the good guy when he/she has the upper hand.

This, i believe, is not what a good guy could or should be.
This is also what i love about roleplaying.
The ability to still be a good guy while have the balls to make the hard decisions.
I am that guy in real life who would say, "Oh that house is supposed to be haunted? Let's not go there unless we plan on burning it down or something".
Yes i have actually been to a haunted house in real life and it was a lot of fun,nothing bad happened to me so nothing bad was done to the place, but my purpose was to get spooked and learn some things, not to fight bad guys.


Thinking about some of the topics involved here.

  • Good guys should always accept the surrender of an opponent.
    I'm not sure if I buy that. Let's do a little reductio ad absurdum, let's say you are faced with a demon coated in the blood of children they just slaughter, should a good character feel obligated to accept this creature's surrender? I don't think so, this creature is irredeemable (baring extremely rare situations). Also this creature is a continued threat and it is unreasonable to expect to safely contain such a creature for any extended period.

  • Unarmed means helpless.
    In many cases this is false, a spellcaster with still and silently spells can be just as deadly bound and gagged as they are free. Creatures with natural weapons or unarmed fighting ability also prove this is wrong (why someone suggested chopping off the creatures hands and smashing out their teeth), though these can be more hindered by being bound.

  • It is always the best choice for good characters to take prisoners.
    Nope, I don't buy that. In order for this to be a legitimate choice, there has be massive support within the game world. The party has to be the acting arm of some legitimate authority. That authority has to have the means of taking care of prisoners and be able to keep them contained (anti-magic prisons for example).

  • My character has to behave this way because it is what the character would do.
    This is an assine stance. Characters have multiple motivations going on at all times, I suggest you find a motivation for your character that doesn't involve you being a douchebag. Attacking party members (ignoring the cases where they are dominated and you are trying to incapacitate them non-lethally) is almost always a jerk move and poor gaming practice. That doesn't mean that party members shouldn't come to odds, but once it comes to blows, you might as well just end the game at that point.


  • pres man wrote:

    Thinking about some of the topics involved here.

  • Good guys should always accept the surrender of an opponent.
    I'm not sure if I buy that. Let's do a little reductio ad absurdum, let's say you are faced with a demon coated in the blood of children they just slaughter, should a good character feel obligated to accept this creature's surrender? I don't think so, this creature is irredeemable (baring extremely rare situations). Also this creature is a continued threat and it is unreasonable to expect to safely contain such a creature for any extended period.
  • Strawman argument Pres. Nobody said you should give a demon quarter. If you're lawful, you should accept a surrender, regardless of whether you are good, neutral, or evil. A LE knight is going to accept the surrender of a good fighter. Now, once a surrender is accepted, nature takes over on what the enemy has to do at that point. It could be renounce their evil ways or be beheaded, or it could be ransoming their equipment for their life. Most Knights who lost and surrendered ransomed their equipment in exchange for their life historically.

    Outsiders, with the [evil] or [good] tag are fundamentally that way, and by RAW, can't change. So killing a demon that tries to surrender is just what Good is supposed to do. By the same token, accepting an evil persons surrender is also what they are supposed to do, because good is supposed to be trying to redeem as well, not just slaughter. Your description of someone who does what is necessary is not good, it's neutral (Batman vs Punisher).

    EDIT : Now, if you'd said 'A Devil surrenders', then I'd have said, yes, any creature should accept that surrender. Then the person accepting the surrender extracts what they want from the devil. The good person agrees to accept it if they go home and never willingly come to or stay on the mortal plain again. An evil demands a boon of some sort, and a neutral does one or the other.


    mdt wrote:
    pres man wrote:

    Thinking about some of the topics involved here.

  • Good guys should always accept the surrender of an opponent.
    I'm not sure if I buy that. Let's do a little reductio ad absurdum, let's say you are faced with a demon coated in the blood of children they just slaughter, should a good character feel obligated to accept this creature's surrender? I don't think so, this creature is irredeemable (baring extremely rare situations). Also this creature is a continued threat and it is unreasonable to expect to safely contain such a creature for any extended period.
  • Strawman argument Pres. Nobody said you should give a demon quarter. If you're lawful, you should accept a surrender, regardless of whether you are good, neutral, or evil. A LE knight is going to accept the surrender of a good fighter. Now, once a surrender is accepted, nature takes over on what the enemy has to do at that point. It could be renounce their evil ways or be beheaded, or it could be ransoming their equipment for their life. Most Knights who lost and surrendered ransomed their equipment in exchange for their life historically.

    Outsiders, with the [evil] or [good] tag are fundamentally that way, and by RAW, can't change. So killing a demon that tries to surrender is just what Good is supposed to do. By the same token, accepting an evil persons surrender is also what they are supposed to do, because good is supposed to be trying to redeem as well, not just slaughter. Your description of someone who does what is necessary is not good, it's neutral (Batman vs Punisher).

    EDIT : Now, if you'd said 'A Devil surrenders', then I'd have said, yes, any creature should accept that surrender. Then the person accepting the surrender extracts what they want from the devil. The good person agrees to accept it if they go home and never willingly come to or stay on the mortal plain again. An evil demands a boon of some sort, and a neutral does one or the other.

    Strawman? I said it was reductio ad absurdum. Did you miss that?


    BTW, somebody in another thread mentioned that the rules actually speak directly to how Alignment is treated in game, and the GM´s role:

    Alignment rules in the Additional Rules Chapter wrote:

    In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.

    Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

    Neutral Evil: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
    Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
    Neutral evil represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

    Neutral Good: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
    Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order.

    51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Gnomes, Lizardfolk and Neutral Good All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.