I have a question as to whether I am being unreasonable here.
Situation:
The characters are looking for a friend who has been kidnapped. They have come to a dwarven town in the mountains where the guy who seems to be involved is running things. The PC's follow a guard coming off duty and drop him with sleep planning to interrogate him. Afterwards the party splits up a little. the LG wizard, when left with the guard, strangles the guard to death.
The Argument:
He claims that the guard needed to die because if he lived the BBEG would find them and do more harm. additionally the guard WORKS for the BG so, he is no better than his boss.
I say this is evil since they picked the guy off the street and then murdered him in a cellar. I think it was poor planning and should have some consequences.
What are some other peoples thoughts on this?
Casting a spell with the [Evil] tag, or any action determined on your PC behalf determined by the GM.
Thanks, but please read the post
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the wizard murdered a guard, who was helpless, asleep, and no threat, because it was expedient? Definitely an evil act. Doesn't look like there was any evidence that the guard was evil, and if there was, there was no process of determining guilt. I don't even think a lawful evil character would have committed that act.
The murder was an evil act. More than that, it was not a lawful act. The PC violated both components of his alignment.
One thing to remember about Pathfinder is that there is a clearly defined absolute morality. Moral relativism does not exist when you have gods and other entities setting / bound by the same rules. In my book, the killing of a helpless individual outside of a coup de gras in combat is an evil act (and barring lawful executions after a trial).
I agree with blackbloodtroll, though. This single act should not drop him to an evil alignment, but it's a hell of a step. I do disagree that he has to hit neutral first - I think that it's possible to skip neutral entirely with a significant enough act.
So, the wizard murdered a guard, who was helpless, asleep, and no threat, because it was expedient? Definitely an evil act. Doesn't look like there was any evidence that the guard was evil, and if there was, there was no process of determining guilt. I don't even think a lawful evil character would have committed that act.
The murder was an evil act. More than that, it was not a lawful act. The PC violated both components of his alignment.
One thing to remember about Pathfinder is that there is a clearly defined absolute morality. Moral relativism does not exist when you have gods and other entities setting / bound by the same rules. In my book, the killing of a helpless individual outside of a coup de gras in combat is an evil act (and barring lawful executions after a trial).
I agree with blackbloodtroll, though. This single act should not drop him to an evil alignment, but it's a hell of a step. I do disagree that he has to hit neutral first - I think that it's possible to skip neutral entirely with a significant enough act.
I agree, though I have to say this is really quite evil.. not quite lawful either but I wouldnt go sofar as say chaotic evil since he did have a reason to kill him rather than an impulsive act.
I'd resolve it by having him be 'evil for a day', more evil acts will have him be evil for a longer time before turning him evil permanently, I do want evil acts to matter and dont particulary like the I am a saint but I can get away with two or three evil acts before falling approach, neutral characters are supposed to be uncommited though generally good natured folk, keeping a good alignment should be hard and require dedication. Fundamentally different from evil in my opinion, they should not use the same rules, I believe an evil person should try hard to get better.
So, the wizard murdered a guard, who was helpless, asleep, and no threat, because it was expedient? Definitely an evil act. Doesn't look like there was any evidence that the guard was evil, and if there was, there was no process of determining guilt. I don't even think a lawful evil character would have committed that act.
The murder was an evil act. More than that, it was not a lawful act. The PC violated both components of his alignment.
One thing to remember about Pathfinder is that there is a clearly defined absolute morality. Moral relativism does not exist when you have gods and other entities setting / bound by the same rules. In my book, the killing of a helpless individual outside of a coup de gras in combat is an evil act (and barring lawful executions after a trial).
I agree with blackbloodtroll, though. This single act should not drop him to an evil alignment, but it's a hell of a step. I do disagree that he has to hit neutral first - I think that it's possible to skip neutral entirely with a significant enough act.
I agree, though I have to say this is really quite evil.. not quite lawful either but I wouldnt go sofar as say chaotic evil since he did have a reason to kill him rather than an impulsive act.
I'd resolve it by having him be 'evil for a day', more evil acts will have him be evil for a longer time before turning him evil permanently, I do want evil acts to matter and dont particulary like the I am a saint but I can get away with two or three evil acts before falling approach, neutral characters are supposed to be uncommited though generally good natured folk, keeping a good alignment should be hard and require dedication. Fundamentally different from evil in my opinion, they should not use the same rules, I believe an evil person should try hard to get better.
There's an idea - have his aura register as evil for the next day or so to anyone who casts Detect Evil.
|
Yes, and the Nazi's were LG and just being expediant... after all, the Russians hated the Jews more and would kill them if they didn't do it first.
UM. Yeh. Definately an unlawful evil act. ZERO doubt, even with a moral relativist trying to argue otherwise. (you can't justify an evil act by predicting the future, this is why LG people, when asked if they would kill Hittler if they had the chance, but didn't know about what he would do have no choice but to say "NO", killing someone because they 'might' get killed by someone else... by that rationalization, we could kill anyone we wanted (which is the definition of CE, not LG))
There's an idea - have his aura register as evil for the next day or so to anyone who casts Detect Evil.So, the wizard murdered a guard, who was helpless, asleep, and no threat, because it was expedient? Definitely an evil act. Doesn't look like there was any evidence that the guard was evil, and if there was, there was no process of determining guilt. I don't even think a lawful evil character would have committed that act.
The murder was an evil act. More than that, it was not a lawful act. The PC violated both components of his alignment.
One thing to remember about Pathfinder is that there is a clearly defined absolute morality. Moral relativism does not exist when you have gods and other entities setting / bound by the same rules. In my book, the killing of a helpless individual outside of a coup de gras in combat is an evil act (and barring lawful executions after a trial).
I agree with blackbloodtroll, though. This single act should not drop him to an evil alignment, but it's a hell of a step. I do disagree that he has to hit neutral first - I think that it's possible to skip neutral entirely with a significant enough act.
I agree, though I have to say this is really quite evil.. not quite lawful either but I wouldnt go sofar as say chaotic evil since he did have a reason to kill him rather than an impulsive act.
I'd resolve it by having him be 'evil for a day', more evil acts will have him be evil for a longer time before turning him evil permanently, I do want evil acts to matter and dont particulary like the I am a saint but I can get away with two or three evil acts before falling approach, neutral characters are supposed to be uncommited though generally good natured folk, keeping a good alignment should be hard and require dedication. Fundamentally different from evil in my opinion, they should not use the same rules, I believe an evil person should try hard to get better.
Yea, not sure it came across in retrospect but I meant him to be evil for spells and effects. This could be especially confrontational if the characters Holy Sword rejects the wielder inflicting negative levels on him.
His act was very evil and he should die!
No, but really, the player needs to define what he sees as LG because he just can't go round killing "helpless" dudes just because they "work" for the BBEG.
As far as he knows the guard was only working for the BBEG through fear, and even if he wasn't, killing when LG isn't really on unless you're being attacked.
But as others have said one action doesn't change an alignment. Make a note of it, tell the player what you've done and why, and then move on.
So, this is what you do: Warn him that a few more similar actions like that will result in alignment drift. That's it. If he does a few more actions like that, shift his alignment one step.
Solved.
I agree with this. Simply talk to him. Let him know more of the same will cause a shift.
|
Everyone knows the 14 year old girl who works as a chambermaid for the BBEG simply must die... I mean she works for him after all.
I think it stems from two many Anti-heroes in pop culture these days, the Punisher is a good guy, but the old Lone Ranger is just a dweeb in the minds of many. Sitting down and explaining the definitions of Good/Evil helps sometimes with players. Good is the hardest road to travel, and the road to hell is paved with evil actions that were "justified" for the greater good.
Thanks for the feedback everyone. My general feeling was that he should have an evil aura for some time. His alignment did not shift as a result of this action- I think that would be too severe.
I did make him figure out what he was going to do with the body- at which point he was found dragging the body around the city in the middle of the night and now he's a wanted man. So I figure some reputation consequences are there as well.
I just wanted to make sure I wasn't over reacting since he was very convinced that what he did was fine.
I have a question as to whether I am being unreasonable here.
Situation:
The characters are looking for a friend who has been kidnapped. They have come to a dwarven town in the mountains where the guy who seems to be involved is running things. The PC's follow a guard coming off duty and drop him with sleep planning to interrogate him. Afterwards the party splits up a little. the LG wizard, when left with the guard, strangles the guard to death.The Argument:
He claims that the guard needed to die because if he lived the BBEG would find them and do more harm. additionally the guard WORKS for the BG so, he is no better than his boss.I say this is evil since they picked the guy off the street and then murdered him in a cellar. I think it was poor planning and should have some consequences.
What are some other peoples thoughts on this?
Your post doesn't explain how he found out that he does indeed work for this BBEG. The scenario you gave had an LG Wizard come upon a city, with assumptions, follow with the intent of interrogation and then simply kill. If he didn't know, it's pretty cut/dry.
Otherwise, it's your call. I hate these scenarios, you have to be there to get the 'feel' of the act...
Your post doesn't explain how he found out that he does indeed work for this BBEG. The scenario you gave had an LG Wizard come upon a city, with assumptions, follow with the intent of interrogation and then simply kill. If he didn't know, it's pretty cut/dry.Otherwise, it's your call. I hate these scenarios, you have to be there to get the 'feel' of the act...
Yeah, I was just covering the broad strokes. They heard elsewhere that the head dwarf of this place was dealing in some slave trade and when they met with him he had their buddy's axe on his belt.
The party followed the guard who was leaving the central Keep of the town. The idea here is that the bad guy is kind of running things in town. the town is not an evil place. They believe their pal is in the dungeon of this keep and are trying to get him out. So they nabbed this guard coming off of duty and wanted to find out the times when the guards change shifts. At this point the rogue and the bard went to go check out the keep at night time and the wizard said he would "handle" the guard. Since there have been occasions in the past where leaving NPCs tied up has come back to bite them, he decided to fashion a noose and strangle the guard- thinking that would be more efficient. The rest of the party was just as surprised as I was.
As others have said i don't think that there are a lot of single acts that can cause an immediate alignment swift (for that example become LN), also i seriously reccomend having his aura register as evil for a time UNLESS you have house ruled those spells to work somewhat differently.
Now about the act:
First of all it wasn't an unlawful act, if anything i view it as a lawful act, now about the good and evil apsect of the act i have to ask:
What was the alignment of the guard and how did he killed* the guard?
*i know you said that he strangled him but i was curious if there were more to that
if anything i view it as a lawful act
Now I'm curious. How so?
What was the alignment of the guard?
How is that relevant?
if anything i view it as a lawful actNow I'm curious. How so?
What was the alignment of the guard?How is that relevant?
About the alignment of the guard, killing evil people is a good thing most of the times and i haven't heard of an example that it's an evil act (the way you killed them on the other hand....)
About the lawful part, it was an act to maintain his plan, not alert the boss so he can react and generally keep the control of things. As i should have said i might view it as a lawful act, a pretty minor one at best but definetely not a chaotic act.
Killing someone so your plan stays rosy isn't lawful. You must follow some kind of 'code' that others could follow. Being chaotic is sticking to your own plan no matter what, if anything it's chaotic.
A code of conduct of one (self) = chaotic. Following someone/something elses rules = lawful.
|
Suggest to the party that next time, they should try to convince the guard that his boss is actually a very bad person. If that doesn't help tie the guard up with chains, not rope.
As for killing a helpless person; that's not a very honorable thing to do, but prevented some anguish (the guard wasn't awake, thus didn't "experience" being killed).
To summarize, I don't think the killing was a non-good act (it was a mercy killing).
Misguiding his party members was...not LG. If I was the dm, that player would have been given a warning.
I see it as ruthless, certainly, but not cruel/malicious. This is more LN territory than LG for sure. Wizard judged guard on his own moral code and pronounced judgement. That still has him trending away from LG, though.
I don't see 'sleeping' as a factor. Most executions are done on 'helpless' targets (bound to a chair or tied up and hung/head chopped off). The matter of expediency is more important. If the wizard killed him just because the guard would be inconvenient later, that's evil.
So it boils down to motivation:
"You are a slaver and therefore must die!" = LN
"You might warn your boss so you must die!" = NE
The LG option is hard to quantify. A LG character is still justified in executing a slaver, assuming slavery is defined as Evil. Typically this would be as a last resort after offering them a chance to redeem themselves by making the situation right (this is why any smart good character should bulk up on Sense Motive) by providing relevant information so the slaver could be shut down. The Wizard did none of that.
As others have said i don't think that there are a lot of single acts that can cause an immediate alignment swift (for that example become LN), also i seriously reccomend having his aura register as evil for a time UNLESS you have house ruled those spells to work somewhat differently.
Now about the act:
First of all it wasn't an unlawful act, if anything i view it as a lawful act, now about the good and evil apsect of the act i have to ask:
What was the alignment of the guard and how did he killed* the guard?*i know you said that he strangled him but i was curious if there were more to that
The guards alignment was unknown to the players- but he was LN.
The guard was not asleep at the time he was killed because the questioned him.
I would consider plucking someone off the street into a cellar, questioning and then killing him to be evil.
I would consider kidnapping someone to be chaotic, and killing them with no reason outside of convenience is pretty chaotic as well.
So what good acts has the wizard performed before this?
They have done all kinds of good stuff, saved some small villages, rescued a little girl from a dragon, stopped an evil priest from summoning a demon into their realm of existence. For the most part everyone has been pretty good. Which is why this was so out of character not just for the PC but the player as well.
I see it as ruthless, certainly, but not cruel/malicious. This is more LN territory than LG for sure. Wizard judged guard on his own moral code and pronounced judgement. That still has him trending away from LG, though.
I don't see 'sleeping' as a factor. Most executions are done on 'helpless' targets (bound to a chair or tied up and hung/head chopped off). The matter of expediency is more important. If the wizard killed him just because the guard would be inconvenient later, that's evil.
So it boils down to motivation:
"You are a slaver and therefore must die!" = LN
"You might warn your boss so you must die!" = NEThe LG option is hard to quantify. A LG character is still justified in executing a slaver, assuming slavery is defined as Evil. Typically this would be as a last resort after offering them a chance to redeem themselves by making the situation right (this is why any smart good character should bulk up on Sense Motive) by providing relevant information so the slaver could be shut down. The Wizard did none of that.
I agree with this, however this is where it gets sticky- does the guard know this guy is a slaver or does he just think his boss is an a@@ h@*~? Slavery is illegal and bad so I have no problem with that. I had no moral ambiguity when they eventually ambushed a group of guys heading to the slave camp to pick up the slaves since they were clearly involved in an evil act.
I just have a problem with "well that guard is headed home from work lets get him, ask for some information, and then rather than figure out how to handle this situation before we get ourselves into it, lets kill him"
Were all these good acts done by the wizard with the expectation of compensation?
Some was but saving the little girl was not. He was actually the only guy in the party to go out of his way to find an orphanage so she could be taken care of.
|
|
As others have said i don't think that there are a lot of single acts that can cause an immediate alignment swift (for that example become LN), also i seriously reccomend having his aura register as evil for a time UNLESS you have house ruled those spells to work somewhat differently.
Now about the act:
First of all it wasn't an unlawful act, if anything i view it as a lawful act, now about the good and evil apsect of the act i have to ask:
What was the alignment of the guard and how did he killed* the guard?*i know you said that he strangled him but i was curious if there were more to that
How is capturing the lawful authority of a town and killing it LAWFUL?
That said, my CG group going through and killing LE Kobolds (opposite alignment) are giving no quarter to their foes. The "Chaotic" part is the outright slaughter of their foes (often targetting the weaker worker slaves first). The "moralistic good" part if getting rid of a set of creatures who terrorized their town. I doubt they will have a issue with killing the lawful authority at the end of the tunnel (the Kobold King). But this is because of the Chaotic part (being opposed to the lawful authority). I have seen situations where LG Pali's have attempted a peaceful resolution at the end of adventures (Also called LS (lawful stupid)). But certainly abducting guards and then killing them is at best CG (with Good part being only questionable). For all the party knows, the player may have broken a "no spitting" law and only be in jail/stocks for 2 days. And they murder someone? One might consider that an "over-reaction" until the nature of his imprisonment is known...
Suggest to the party that next time, they should try to convince the guard that his boss is actually a very bad person. If that doesn't help tie the guard up with chains, not rope.
As for killing a helpless person; that's not a very honorable thing to do, but prevented some anguish (the guard wasn't awake, thus didn't "experience" being killed).
To summarize, I don't think the killing was a non-good act (it was a mercy killing).
Misguiding his party members was...not LG. If I was the dm, that player would have been given a warning.
Two problems with this idea:
1- For it to be a mercy killing the wizard would have needed to be doing it to prevent the guard from suffering, not just because the guard might have been Evil and/or might have been working for the BBEG. (Also, even if both of those assumptions had been true, that would likely still not warrant an execution in the eyes of a Lawful character.)
2- By RAW, the guard would suffocate in a mere three rounds (Unconscious, -1 and Dying, Dead), but I suspect it would more likely work like submerging an unconscious character in water and begin with Constitution checks. I would think also that being hung would be considered at least a rough as being slapped, so that means the guard wake at the time of the first CON check and remain awake until he failed a check and became unconscious.
Yeah, not really seeing the mercy here. Personally I believe the player just got ahead of himself and failed to thinks things through. Still a totally Chaotic and Evil action, and hopefully the repercussions of that actions will teach him to meditate on his actions before committing to them.