|
Hi,
I feel that one of my players committed a slightly evil action this weekend and I'd just like to confirm (mostly for him), that it was an evil action.
He says his PC is CG. I say he's definitely not good, maybe CN or Neutral.
Scenario
We're sent into a dungeon where we have to negotiate (or wipe out) a group a goblins. They've been attacking our merchant caravans. The goblins are intelligent and "cultured".
We encounter and beat the son of the "King". I had no problem with the group killing the downed son (in the heat of the moment, even as a 'good' PC), but instead he choose to do the following.
We captured the son, carried him to the King, and then we he didn't like how the negotiation was going, he slit the son's neck and threw him violently in a heap on the ground.
Was that evil? I think it was slightly evil, and just because it was a goblin doesn't justify the complete lack of respect for sentient life and the cruelty involved. I know it wasn't good. What do you think?
Thanks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unarmed captive, slit throat in front of father? Yes. Evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many would argue that him being a goblin was justification enough to be executed, however, I am not one of them, and I'm glad to see some others hold the same view. I've never liked assigning alignments along racial lines, as it doesn't make sense to me given the observable variation amongst humans...
Even then, just because a creature is 'Evil' doesn't seem like enough justification for me either. So he's 'Evil'... what evil things has he actually done, or is he prepared to do that you are trying to prevent.
I've had a group of players turn to debate over whether my Paladin should have lost his powers because he chose to negotiate with a group of Kobolds rather than just kill them. They felt that negotiating with 'Evil" creatures was an evil act.
As for your example? Probably evil unless there is some extenuating circumstance not mentioned here, such as violence was about to erupt or some such. This is the difficulty with taking hostages as a Good character; what do you do if they call your bluff?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What he did was Evil. It's one thing to kill an opponent in open battle. It's quite another thing to murder a hostage during negotiations.
I wouldn't make the character go Evil instantly, rather I'd note down this event and all subsequent actions. Eventually a trend will emerge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unarmed captive, slit throat in front of father? Yes. Evil.
Agreed. This character is CN at best.
Circumstances can count for a lot:
I tend to agree with one of the previous comments though; a single act should not change someone's alignment. Make a note of it and if the behaviour continues, ask him to change alignment.
Definitely evil.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I'm not sure this one action instantly qualifies to change his alignment...although personally, if i were hit DM, and i saw him planning this out, rathe than just a spur-of-the-moment-everybody-makes-mistakes-deal, I'd change his alignment pronto to CN. Killing people just because negotiations aren't going your way is evil...it's a form of blackmail if you threaten to do it beforehand, which is...you guessed it! Evil. Even the Lannisters had more decen-...well, nevermind...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
one standalone evil action does not automatically justify an alignment shift.
so what if you slit the throat of a goblin prince in front of his daddy?
goblins are just goblins. petty fodder that exists for one entire reason. to be mercilessly killed in cold blood by the PCs with a smile on thier face.
in fact, considering the bad steriotypes surrounding goblins, i would consider killing the goblin prince in front of his father a good act. you eliminated a future threat.
just because goblins are cultured doesn't mean they aren't evil.
for that same reason, i believe it's perfectly justified for a paladin to slaughter hordes of orcish children. they would have just grown up to be evil anyway.
|
|
one standalone evil action does not automatically justify an alignment shift.
so what if you slit the throat of a goblin prince in front of his daddy?
goblins are just goblins. petty fodder that exists for one entire reason. to be mercilessly killed in cold blood by the PCs with a smile on thier face.
in fact, considering the bad steriotypes surrounding goblins, i would consider killing the goblin prince in front of his father a good act. you eliminated a future threat.
just because goblins are cultured doesn't mean they aren't evil.
Not necessarily. Killing evil is, normally, a good act, HOWEVER, going out of one's way to mistreat said evil being, and killing them in a vindictive, unnecessary, or brutal fashion, or to kill them to demonstrate a point, not to protect others or yourself, those are not "good" actions. Those are neutral actions at best. Just because they are evil does not mean they are not sentient, and a truly good character would keep the feelings and dignity of any sentient being in mind, evil or otherwise. Such on action on behalf of a paladin, were it done with clear intent, would be enough for over 50% of DMs to rule he lose his abilities...
"Killed an unarmed creature because he/his family wasnt doing what you wanted while making his family watch him die."
Hum.... Yep. My evil-o-meter is peaking.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well, a huge portion of the orcish children are probably orphans due to you slaughtering hordes of thier parents. killing them while they can't defend themselves will do many of the following things
proactively reduce the future forces of evil
save the orcish children a childhood of suffering
reduce orcish starvation rates
proactively stop a potential orcish raid before it ever happens
limit the options the big bad has for soldiers
i support paladins giving orcish genocide.
for similar reasons, i see the brutal death of the goblin prince as a good act.
you elimated a potential tyrant
you potentially ended an evil royal line
you potentially crippled the morale of an evil army
you showed an example to intimidate the potentially evil king
you cut the head off a future evil snake
Yeah. That's evil. Hostage negotiations are called negotiations for a reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
goblins are just goblins. petty fodder that exists for one entire reason. to be mercilessly killed in cold blood by the PCs with a smile on thier face.
I'm not sure that fighting evil justifies being evil yourself. There has to be a point where you don't become the beast you're hunting. Know what I mean?
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." - Friedrich Nietzsche
In any case, I'm not going to debate alignment with anyone, just looking for feedback.
It wasn't a hostage negotiation, we were negotiating a peace treaty between the merchant's guild and the goblin tribe. The merchant guild only wanted to wipe them out as a last resort, since they felt it would fuel more goblin attacks in the future (don't bother disagreeing with this philosophy, it's part of a module, not mine).
Yes, I'm the GM. I allowed him to retract his action and simply kill the son when he was unconscious. No I didn't shift his alignment. Not yet, although it's a suggestion at this point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you can kill goblins and orcs cold bloodedly in every other situation and it's not considered evil. why should slitting the goblin princes throat in front of his father or poisoning a goblin food supply be considered any different?
the goblin king is a threat to your safety, at least if you slit his son's throat in front of him, you can lower enemy morale enough to slaughter an emotionally wounded king and his evil forces.
the only good goblin is a dead one. same with any other goblinoid, orc, gnoll, kobold, or similar always evil humanoid.
if you can kill goblins and orcs cold bloodedly in every other situation and it's not considered evil. why should slitting the goblin princes throat in front of his father or poisoning a goblin food supply be considered any different?
the goblin king is a threat to your safety, at least if you slit his son's throat in front of him, you can lower enemy morale enough to slaughter an emotionally wounded king and his evil forces.
the only good goblin is a dead one. same with any other goblinoid, orc, gnoll, kobold, or similar always evil humanoid.
It's evil because when you are killing orcs in combat they are trying to kill you. You are killing to survive. Slitting a goblins throat in this case was snuffing a life to get edge in negotiations.
Yes it is an evil act. Are there any other examples of what he has done to justify being CN?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's evil because when you are killing orcs in combat they are trying to kill you. You are killing to survive. Slitting a goblins throat in this case was snuffing a life to get edge in negotiations.if you can kill goblins and orcs cold bloodedly in every other situation and it's not considered evil. why should slitting the goblin princes throat in front of his father or poisoning a goblin food supply be considered any different?
the goblin king is a threat to your safety, at least if you slit his son's throat in front of him, you can lower enemy morale enough to slaughter an emotionally wounded king and his evil forces.
the only good goblin is a dead one. same with any other goblinoid, orc, gnoll, kobold, or similar always evil humanoid.
but the goblin deserved it. by virtue of being a goblin.
"If it's evil to do to a human or an elf, it's evil to do to a goblin or an orc."
This was sarcasm right? I certainly hope you are kidding.
|
|
"If it's evil to do to a human or an elf, it's evil to do to a goblin or an orc."
This was sarcasm right? I certainly hope you are kidding.
it doesn't matter how the goblin dies as long as he dies. if it's an evil act when done to a human or elf, it's a good act when done to a goblin or orc.
poisoning orcish wells is a good act. because it eliminates evil. the end justifies the means.
Hmmm... I am going to challenge the consensus that this is evil.
The GM already said he was fine with killing the goblin.
And heroes must kill bad guys all the time.
So the main issue of contention is HOW he killed the goblin.
HOW you do something is a Law/Chaos issue. He used the killing of the goblin as a tool in negotiations. Very Machiavelli, very chaotic. But evil? nope.
I am not sure that we would be able to call Machiavelli good though either.
While it definately seems like an evil act, I would like to have the complete context. For example, had the player decided that since negotiations were failing that they would need to kill all of the goblins, and just started with the one he held captive?
Or was it just a vindictive act to punish the goblin king?
|
|
While it definately seems like an evil act, I would like to have the complete context. For example, had the player decided that since negotiations were failing that they would need to kill all of the goblins, and just started with the one he held captive?
Or was it just a vindictive act to punish the goblin king?
either way, the goblin king deserved to see his son's throat slit right in front of his eyes for trying to found a kingdom with the intent to perform cruel attrocities upon the human race.
my big cousin Nualia taught me how fun it is to think through Lamashtu's mindset.
What do I think? That this thread will have as many opinions as there are alignments, and the debate will get rather heated.
Look, just tell the player, OOC, that you don’t think this sort of thing is heroic and it isn’t part of the campaign you want to run.
I don't find it evil. If he did it to an innocent and goodly creature, then it's evil. This is a GOBLIN! You can pretty it up all you want, but the end result is that the goblin would not have mercy on your PCs and your PCs know this. He's CG, which is CHAOTIC. I don't care if there's a good on there or not, he gets pissed off and things go a bit crazy with his chaotic side, he slits the throat of an evil being and is done with it. Now if this was a Paladin with a LG alignment, I'd say he was outside of his code and that would be considered a bad thing to do and dishonorable. That's the worst that this is: dishonorable.
Now on the flip side, if he keeps doing dishonorable/questionable/seemingly evil things like that, I'd have to seriously consider asking him to go more towards the neutral side of the alignment instead of good, but if it's a one-time thing I find no problem with it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"If it's evil to do to a human or an elf, it's evil to do to a goblin or an orc."
This was sarcasm right? I certainly hope you are kidding.
Dead serious. Moral dissonance is a horrible trope.
Humans, elves, goblins, and orcs are all sapient beings with free will.
If it's evil to kill human babies, it's evil to kill goblin babies.
If it's not evil to punch a genocidal orc in the throat, it's not evil to punch a genocidal elf in the throat.
It's not rocket surgery.
It all comes down to 'are goblin babies evil' again ...
|
|
I don't find it evil. If he did it to an innocent and goodly creature, then it's evil. This is a GOBLIN! You can pretty it up all you want, but the end result is that the goblin would not have mercy on your PCs and your PCs know this. He's CG, which is CHAOTIC. I don't care if there's a good on there or not, he gets pissed off and things go a bit crazy with his chaotic side, he slits the throat of an evil being and is done with it. Now if this was a Paladin with a LG alignment, I'd say he was outside of his code and that would be considered a bad thing to do and dishonorable. That's the worst that this is: dishonorable.
Now on the flip side, if he keeps doing dishonorable/questionable/seemingly evil things like that, I'd have to seriously consider asking him to go more towards the neutral side of the alignment instead of good, but if it's a one-time thing I find no problem with it.
i agree with most of this with the exception i wouldn't even consider it dishonorable. any time you kill a goblin or orc, no matter how cruel the means, is still good.
if you slaughter hordes of defenseless goblin children, i still see it as a good act. those children would have just grown up to be evil anyway. eliminating the threat before it happens is proactive and practical. not evil and dishonorable.
kill the goblin prince in front of his dad? it's perfectly honorable, no matter how cowardly the act may seen. you were hired to clear out a horde of goblins. it doesn't matter how you do it. even if you poison thier food supply, you still completed the objective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"It's not rocket surgery."
Apparently it is....
You are trying to apply modern concepts of morailty to a situation where it simply does not fit. I wish people would remember it's a FANTASY rpg. There are certain criteria that are KNOWN FACTS. If you want to change it in your home game, knock yourself out but if you check the books, goblins and orcs are the bad guys.
Enough of this shades of grey garbage.
Orcs and goblins are evil, period, end of story. The only right they have is the right to die at the hands of adventures for fun and profit.
There is not weapon or approach that is off-limits to eliminating goblins, orcs and any other evil creatures. Givent he chance they would murder you in your sleep.... EVERY TIME they have the chance.
|
|
"It's not rocket surgery."
Apparently it is....
You are trying to apply modern concepts of morailty to a situation where it simply does not fit. I wish people would remember it's a FANTASY rpg. There are certain criteria that are KNOWN FACTS. If you want to change it in your home game, knock yourself out but if you check the books, goblins and orcs are the bad guys.
Enough of this shades of grey garbage.
Orcs and goblins are evil, period, end of story. The only right they have is the right to die at the hands of adventures for fun and profit.
There is not weapon or approach that is off-limits to eliminating goblins, orcs and any other evil creatures. Givent he chance they would murder you in your sleep.... EVERY TIME they have the chance.
+1
That's why I said "at worst" and with the caveat that a Paladin wouldn't do this kind of thing if the creature is cooperating and tied up. A paladin has a stronger moral code to live by than a CG ranger or barbarian.
I would say it's evil if the goblin or orc was good. There are a few exceptions to the rule of the race being inherently evil. I think about beings like Drizzt Do'Urden and his being able to shake off his culture to find a better way. Another example is a PC that is a GC orc and adventures around doing good things. It's not the race, it's the culture and what they do.
I don't see slaughtering hordes of defenseless goblin children as a good act. They are not evil yet and you have to leave some around for future adventurers to take out!
As another poster said above, you can debate this and there are shades of grey going one way or the other for every person on the boards. What is right, good, honorable, evil, okay to do, or whatever is open for interpretation to every person here.
I'd have to just say if this happened in my group (with me as the DM) and I felt the way the OP does, I'd talk amongst the group and find out their opinions about it as well. This has to be a group call and what everyone thinks in that group should be construed as good or evil. Come to a consensus on types of things like this and follow along with it for your group. Asking us here you'll get all these differing thoughts on it and you'll never be able to make a decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good is about the results. Is it good to kill a cruel, murderer, and bandit? Yes it is. The game makes that clear. No more people will be victimized by this evil goblin son. A good deed was done.
Is it honorable to slay him in front of his own father? Oh heavens no it isn't, but when has a chaotic character cared about honor? Doing dishonorable acts for the greater good is what chaotic good is all about. In D&D they called it the rebel alignment. Rebels don't fight fair.
|
|
"It's not rocket surgery."
Apparently it is....
You are trying to apply modern concepts of morailty to a situation where it simply does not fit. I wish people would remember it's a FANTASY rpg. There are certain criteria that are KNOWN FACTS. If you want to change it in your home game, knock yourself out but if you check the books, goblins and orcs are the bad guys.
Enough of this shades of grey garbage.
Orcs and goblins are evil, period, end of story. The only right they have is the right to die at the hands of adventures for fun and profit.
There is not weapon or approach that is off-limits to eliminating goblins, orcs and any other evil creatures. Givent he chance they would murder you in your sleep.... EVERY TIME they have the chance.
If you check the books, you'll find that creatures' alignments are far from set in stone.
You'll also find that modern morality is in fact reflected in the Good-Evil axis in how they are defined right in the Core Rulebook.
You'll also find that in the Pathfinder setting the forces of good put a lot of stock into the concepts of mercy, redemption, and free will, and that the alignments of "typically" evil creatures are not absolutes.
Now if you want to run a game where everything is stark black and white and countless souls are damned simply for the crime of being born and all elves and dwarves are always good, that's your preference and you're welcome to it.
But it's not the normal assumption.
Calling out moral dissonance isn't "shades of grey". It's a rejection of race-based morality in favor of morality that actually has meaning.
The truth is, this is a fictional game set in an imaginary setting with made-up races/cultures. This gives us an "open for interpretation" argument where someone can say they are inherently evil and someone else brings up the nature vs nurture debate as to whether it's how the goblin is raised by its culture or if it is born evil and pre-programmed to be a little evil beast that commits heinous acts of destruction and violence. If we go RAW as per this imaginary setting: goblins and orcs are all evil, but there are exceptions where PCs can play the monstrous races and then be good which would debunk the alignment system where "all" are evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry TriOmegaZero I cannot agree with you on that.
It is the staple of heroic fantasy to have good heroes go challenge and kill the big bad evil guys. This is seen as good by example in the game itself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good is about the results.
Ah, so many burn in hell that said those words. Good is about intention, method AND results. Good is the hard path to walk, not the easy one. Good is NOT killing the hostage when you have justification because no matter what somebody else did, HE didn't do anything to you (not this specific example perhaps, I hasten to add). Good is by definition about saving life, not taking it.
"The ends justifies the means" is the line used by every person committing almost every atrocity in the world, and some of them had (from their point of view) very noble goals in mind indeed.
Everybody thinks that they are the good guy, that they are right and justified. The ones who are Evil are the ones claiming it's 'good' to kill, torture, maim, murder innocents etc. because after all, isn't our goal pure and our ideals strong? Isn't God on our side?
Is it good to kill a cruel, murderer, and bandit? Yes it is.
Wrong! It is not 'good' to kill a murderer. It is sometimes not even justified to do so, depending on how you do it. Good is justified in taking life to preserve and protect more life, but it does so out of necessity, not desire, frustration or (especially) pleasure. If you kill in self defence it is justified, but it isn't good. If you kill for revenge, it may be justified as serving the greater good, or it may not.
The game makes that clear. No more people will be victimized by this evil goblin son. A good deed was done.
Not the game I play.
Is it honorable to slay him in front of his own father? Oh heavens no it isn't, but when has a chaotic character cared about honor? Doing dishonorable acts for the greater good is what chaotic good is all about. In D&D they called it the rebel alignment. Rebels don't fight fair.
Chaotics CAN have a sense of honour, it's just not codified and held to rigidly.