Wait a minute, that's not making any sense. One person dies in both scenarios!!
Yes but your actions vary. Most people (this test has been repeated many times and the vast majority of people agree with the responses I gave earlier) feel that sacrificing the one (pulling a lever) justifies saving the five but most would not actively murder a man (push him onto the track) even if to save the five men.
|
I think you're mixing up "good" and "expedient". The downed target was the enemy, sure. Alignment, unknown. His life, basically in your hands at that moment. To kill, or not to kill. If it's more convenient / safer do we kill? Do we kill enemy wounded or POWs when it's convenient? Do you look down at the guy you just dropped and think "better dead"? It's an option and some would justify it due to safety or uncertainty. And I'm not saying finishing off someone "just in case" is not something I would do. Fear, responsibility for others, and anger are all motivators for this. But, whatever else it is, it's not "good". Ask Anakin Skywalker if you're not sure, or to paraphrase the little green guy "to the dark side they lead". And no one ever said "good" is easy or convenient. That's why "neutral" is so popular as an alignment option. It let's you do the expedient thing.
This has been an interesting thread because to me, it seems quite clear-cut that Mergy's action was not evil.Now, I don't want to accuse anyone of having a broken moral compass, or anything like that, but Mergy's oracle was in position to save his life and the lives of his crew at the cost of this guy's life. Easy choice in my eyes. Maybe there was a chance to work it out with him diplomatically, but that was all it was, a chance.
I don't think the method used to take the cleric out is really relevant. He was going to stand up the next turn and likely start doing his thing again. Coup de grace-ing him was the smart choice.
This!
Your man was down, all someone had to do was tie and gag him. There was no need to kill someone that was already down. I take back what I said, that was an evil act.
|
|
Yes but your actions vary. Most people (this test has been repeated many times and the vast majority of people agree with the responses I gave earlier) feel that sacrificing the one (pulling a lever) justifies saving the five but most would not actively murder a man (push him onto the track) even if to save the five men.
Who is pulling the lever and who is doing the pushing?
|
As much as I like your idea Tacticslion, you'd need to convince a lot of people who stick to the status quo that assassination is not automatic evil.
I think most people would consider James Bond to be at least neutral with good tendencies, if not good. And he's far less a spy than he is an assassin.
As much as I like your idea Tacticslion, you'd need to convince a lot of people who stick to the status quo that assassination is not automatic evil.I think most people would consider James Bond to be at least neutral with good tendencies, if not good. And he's far less a spy than he is an assassin.
Most people haz broken moral compasses, lol. :)
But, uh, seriously. Bond is an excellent example of a Lawful/Neutral assassin. He kills when ordered, for the "good" (used in non-alignment context here) of his society. He has all the circumstantial "but this is FOR good reason" mitigations going on, which keeps him neutral. His discipline and (usual) adherence to his orders are evidence of his primarily-lawful bent. There IS an argument to be made for a True Neutral alignment, based on his whimsical manner and casual ignoring of certain parts of his mission, on occasion.
But, again, using killing as the solution for evil leaves one stuck as at-best-neutral on the good/evil axis. Imo...
|
I think you're mixing up "good" and "expedient". The downed target was the enemy, sure. Alignment, unknown. His life, basically in your hands at that moment. To kill, or not to kill. If it's more convenient / safer do we kill? Do we kill enemy wounded or POWs when it's convenient? Do you look down at the guy you just dropped and think "better dead"? It's an option and some would justify it due to safety or uncertainty. And I'm not saying finishing off someone "just in case" is not something I would do. Fear, responsibility for others, and anger are all motivators for this. But, whatever else it is, it's not "good". Ask Anakin Skywalker if you're not sure, or to paraphrase the little green guy "to the dark side they lead". And no one ever said "good" is easy or convenient. That's why "neutral" is so popular as an alignment option. It let's you do the expedient thing.
This has been an interesting thread because to me, it seems quite clear-cut that Mergy's action was not evil.Now, I don't want to accuse anyone of having a broken moral compass, or anything like that, but Mergy's oracle was in position to save his life and the lives of his crew at the cost of this guy's life. Easy choice in my eyes. Maybe there was a chance to work it out with him diplomatically, but that was all it was, a chance.
I don't think the method used to take the cleric out is really relevant. He was going to stand up the next turn and likely start doing his thing again. Coup de grace-ing him was the smart choice.
This!
Your man was down, all someone had to do was tie and gag him. There was no need to kill someone that was already down. I take back what I said, that was an evil act.
Except there was an attempt in progress to heal him and give him instantly the capability to kill many party members. no time to tie and gag
|
|
As much as I like your idea Tacticslion, you'd need to convince a lot of people who stick to the status quo that assassination is not automatic evil.I think most people would consider James Bond to be at least neutral with good tendencies, if not good. And he's far less a spy than he is an assassin.Most people haz broken moral compasses, lol. :)
But, uh, seriously. Bond is an excellent example of a Lawful/Neutral assassin. He kills when ordered, for the "good" (used in non-alignment context here) of his society. He has all the circumstantial "but this is FOR good reason" mitigations going on, which keeps him neutral. His discipline and (usual) adherence to his orders are evidence of his primarily-lawful bent. There IS an argument to be made for a True Neutral alignment, based on his whimsical manner and casual ignoring of certain parts of his mission, on occasion.
But, again, using killing as the solution for evil leaves one stuck as at-best-neutral on the good/evil axis. Imo...
Why is the only "good" option to let many die because of inaction. That is the real broken morality
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the only "good" option to let many die because of inaction. That is the real broken moralityAs much as I like your idea Tacticslion, you'd need to convince a lot of people who stick to the status quo that assassination is not automatic evil.I think most people would consider James Bond to be at least neutral with good tendencies, if not good. And he's far less a spy than he is an assassin.Most people haz broken moral compasses, lol. :)
But, uh, seriously. Bond is an excellent example of a Lawful/Neutral assassin. He kills when ordered, for the "good" (used in non-alignment context here) of his society. He has all the circumstantial "but this is FOR good reason" mitigations going on, which keeps him neutral. His discipline and (usual) adherence to his orders are evidence of his primarily-lawful bent. There IS an argument to be made for a True Neutral alignment, based on his whimsical manner and casual ignoring of certain parts of his mission, on occasion.
But, again, using killing as the solution for evil leaves one stuck as at-best-neutral on the good/evil axis. Imo...
Not to mention that defining lethal force as automatically evil/incompatible with good alignment kind of leaves the Paladin in a tight spot. They get Smite Evil and Martial Weapon Proficiency for a reason, just like they don't get powers like "Give Hugs" and "Rainbow of Magical Friendship".
(On an unrelated note, I now want to create a Paladin Archetype that smacks evil with magical friendship rainbows.)
Except there was an attempt in progress to heal him and give him instantly the capability to kill many party members. no time to tie and gag
Let's see... close enough to use the coup de grace, but somehow too far away to interfere with healing or tying up the enemy? No, not really. You have to be in the same square or adjecent to do it. The coup de grace is a full round action. Using a potion on yourself is a standard action. Holding someone who is unconscious and pouring it down his throat has to be a full round at least. I'd say a round to position him and open his mouth (6 seconds) followed by a standard action (next round) to pour it down his throat. AoO there too for the potion. Maybe given a round plus the PC could have nailed the other guy or just the potion bottle itself? There are a lot of other options there.
Why is the only "good" option to let many die because of inaction. That is the real broken morality
And who said "do nothing"? The point is there were multiple possible actions, not just the flashy cinematic coup de grace.
Not to mention that defining lethal force as automatically evil/incompatible with good alignment kind of leaves the Paladin in a tight spot. They get Smite Evil and Martial Weapon Proficiency for a reason, just like they don't get powers like "Give Hugs" and "Rainbow of Magical Friendship".
And who is doing that? The question is when is lethal force appropriate, not if. There are times when it is or isn't, for a police officer, a soldier, a knight or a Paladin. No, they don't get those "powers". Just a conscious and a knowledge of right and wrong, which some people apparently lack or are willing to shelve when it's inconvenient.
(On an unrelated note, I now want to create a Paladin Archetype that smacks evil with magical friendship rainbows.)
Feel free. I'll stick with my sword.
*edit* Sorry, but when I firs posted this I mixed up the quotes a bit. Fixed that after a minute or two when I looked at the resultant post.
@ R
Nah, I AM equating lethal force against sentient beings with evil... because the alignment rules put killing people on the evil boat.
And I'm not saying killing once, or twenty times, looses you your good alignment.
But making a career out of killing will, in the fullness of time, make one neutral at best, because the game puts killing on the evil boat.
Making excuses for evil behavior is how you slip away from the path of being a good person. Yes, it's harder to be good than to be evil.
@ R
Nah, I AM equating lethal force against sentient beings with evil... because the alignment rules put killing people on the evil boat.
And I'm not saying killing once, or twenty times, looses you your good alignment.
But making a career out of killing will, in the fullness of time, make one neutral at best, because the game puts killing on the evil boat.
Making excuses for evil behavior is how you slip away from the path of being a good person. Yes, it's harder to be good than to be evil.
But then we're still at the standard where Paladins are not allowed to kill. After all, a single evil act is enough to make them fall.
Why is the only "good" option to let many die because of inaction. That is the real broken morality.As much as I like your idea Tacticslion, you'd need to convince a lot of people who stick to the status quo that assassination is not automatic evil.I think most people would consider James Bond to be at least neutral with good tendencies, if not good. And he's far less a spy than he is an assassin.Most people haz broken moral compasses, lol. :)
But, uh, seriously. Bond is an excellent example of a Lawful/Neutral assassin. He kills when ordered, for the "good" (used in non-alignment context here) of his society. He has all the circumstantial "but this is FOR good reason" mitigations going on, which keeps him neutral. His discipline and (usual) adherence to his orders are evidence of his primarily-lawful bent. There IS an argument to be made for a True Neutral alignment, based on his whimsical manner and casual ignoring of certain parts of his mission, on occasion.
But, again, using killing as the solution for evil leaves one stuck as at-best-neutral on the good/evil axis. Imo...
Exactly what I've been trying to say as well...
But then we're still at the standard where Paladins are not allowed to kill. After all, a single evil act is enough to make them fall.
This is problematic. And, at root, a flaw in the alignment system (one of many).
I'm not personally committed to the killing=evil equation; I know it may sound like it. But I am arguing that killing=evil because that's one of the basic definitions in the rules about what's evil. Unless you issue some kind of house rule about the basic definitions of evil, you don't get to say "killing is evil, EXCEPT..." because that isn't how it works as written.
If an act is evil for a villain, it is equally evil for a hero.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to say that the alignment system is probably my least favourite mechanic in PFRPG or it's predecessors because it leads to unresolvable discussions like this.
Your actions affect your alignment, which is like this good/evil, law/chaos meter in undefined ways that no two people ever really agree on. This would be fine if it was just a label, but it has mechanics repercussions for things like cleric and paladin powers and whether you are affected by various spells and weapon abilities.
Now before you accuse me of slaughtering a golden calf, imagine just for a moment, a different world where instead of having to worry about whether you Alignment-O-Meter shifted over to the evil side by five points or ten points, you instead just had to worry about the in game consequences of your actions.
I don't think it is a deal breaker really. There are other good RPG's that don't even make mention of an alignment concept. I think it would add a bit more depth to the game and maybe even *gasp* allow for some moral ambiguity. Ambiguity I think is really the hallmark of the best writing and design that you see in the fantasy and sci-fi genres, like A Song of Ice and Fire, or even Battlestar Galactica.
TLDR: Don't get me wrong, I love moral philosophy discussions, but when the Trolley Dilemma is brought up to justify something that affects game mechanics, the game has been derailed unnecessarily . Derailing is bad. Moral ambiguity is sometimes good.
|
Let's see... close enough to use the coup de grace, but somehow too far away to interfere with healing or tying up the enemy? No, not really. You have to be in the same square or adjecent to do it. The coup de grace is a full round action. Using a potion on yourself is a standard action. Holding someone who is unconscious and pouring it down his throat has to be a full round at least. I'd say a round to position him and open his mouth (6 seconds) followed by a standard action (next round) to pour it down his throat. AoO there too for the potion. Maybe given a round plus the PC could have nailed the other guy or just the potion bottle itself? There are a lot of other options there.
I'm going to assume you weren't at my table now when the game was going on, so I'll tell you how it was. My character WAS close enough to coup de grace, but he would have had to move and risk missing with a sunder or disarm manoeuvre to get the potion out of the other enemy's hand.
I explained that he was in the process of the full round action of pouring it down his ally's throat; he had begun it as a standard action (because it was a move action to pull out the potion), and was going to complete it the next turn. I was on the opposite side of the cleric and so was not entitled to an attack of opportunity.
I will never argue that it was a good action that my character took, but I would thank you to not be condescending in your surmising my consideration of options. I considered other options, and I took one which I thought would save my party while doing the least ill.
I'm going to assume you weren't at my table now when the game was going on, so I'll tell you how it was. My character WAS close enough to coup de grace, but he would have had to move and risk missing with a sunder or disarm manoeuvre to get the potion out of the other enemy's hand.
No, I wasn't at your table :) The distance between you and both of them (the prone / helpless target and the other individual with the potion) should have been the same. You can't administer a potion to a prone individual from 5' away. The guy with the potion should have had to enter the other guys square and bend down to assist him with the potion.
I explained that he was in the process of the full round action of pouring it down his ally's throat; he had begun it as a standard action (because it was a move action to pull out the potion), and was going to complete it the next turn. I was on the opposite side of the cleric and so was not entitled to an attack of opportunity.
Move action to pull out the potion, 5' move to enter his allies square (imo as above) and... he should have had to manipulate the other guys dying and or unconscious body and then pour it down his throat. I'd agree a full round after entry to do that. A round and a half. You should have had an AoO. He was within your threat range (if his friend was) and was certainly ignoring you to aid his comrade. As for pouring that potion down the guys throat from 5' away; he'd need a funnel and a pair of very long tongs not to be next to you. I think you should have had an AoO (on his move) and your own attack as well (I don't know your level to say how many). Imo, of course but I think supported by the rules and common sense.
I will never argue that it was a good action that my character took, but I would thank you to not be condescending in your surmising my consideration of options. I considered other options, and I took one which I thought would save my party while doing the least ill.
I know you didn't; others were arguing that it was good. I'm not trying to be condescending. Sorry if it came off that way, you didn't say anything in this thread that would cause me to do that. Really. I think you took what you considered to be the only action that could ensure the outcome you wanted. I think part of that is because you weren't given all your options (AoO etc.). *shrug* It's not like you were a Paladin and had to sweat the details of individual actions. And, as I said above I'm not saying I wouldn't have done the same -- just that it wasn't a "good" action. I also opined above that a single action like this shouldn't have put your alignment at risk. It was an expedient / "necessary" action, and short of being a Paladin not too many actions should have that immediate an impact on your alignment.
And of course, the other guy should have had to stand up after wasting his potion on his friend, giving you another AoO and a chance for a real beat down on him :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it was Evil at all. Considering the situation this was more on the Law vs Chaos axis (IMO). Striking down a helpless foe - one that clearly has intent of harming you and would likely continue to do stuff if roused - is a dishonorable action.
Evil - not really. Had you kept the guy alive, and tortured him later.
Further - I tend to think to many DM's assume "Chaotic" actions mean "Evil" actions.
i wouldn't even consider it dishonorable. i consider it quite honorable.
you helped to down a hostile foe, there is nothing wrong with claiming said foe's head as a trophy.
historically, dishonorable was a term passed around to anything that either provided an advantage against or equalized the odds of defeating the wealthy noble warrior caste. and said actions were only deemed dishonorable when the advantage was discovered.
the british discovered that the longbow can take out the armored knight before he may threaten your life with his devastating charge. the armored knights complained, so the action got deemed dishonorable.
the japanese samurai were on the recieving end of firearms that put them at a disadvantage, so they complained and firearms were considered dishonorable due to both the enhanced range, and due the ease of training
a lot of fiction percieves the use of magic as equalizing or overshadowing the warrior caste, so the warrior caste complained and magic is deemed dishonorable in those works.
in a lot of worlds, peasants discovered that poisoned food makes the elite soldiers of the enemy easier to slay, enemy elite soldiers complain that poison is dishonorable
but f*** honor, all is fair in war, and all is fair in adventuring. in both, you have many risks to deal with, and when up against superior odds, need every bonus you can get.
So instead of surrendering, a downed enemy decided to bandage himself to get back into the fight and kill you and your friends. Not even close to evil on your part. In fact, the cleric had it coming.
*Said a lot related to honorable / dishonorable conduct and reletavistic views of good and evil and social mores.*
Sorry but this had nothing to do with Japanese concepts of honor (which had damn all to do with good / evil anyway) or cultural - social relativism. This had to do with "good and evil" as defined in D&D / PF alignment terms, which is largely based on western ideas about it.
I can see some of your points, but complaints about social justice and wealthy noble warrior castes (by which you mean classes I gather) can be taken up at other times.
One thing though, if you think all is fair in war the UCMJ, the Geneva Convention and International Law would like to have a few words with you :) That guy on trial for mudering 16 civilians (including 9 children) while on deployment probably agrees with you though.
So instead of surrendering, a downed enemy decided to bandage himself to get back into the fight and kill you and your friends. Not even close to evil on your part. In fact, the cleric had it coming.
Actually, his buddy decided to pour a potion down his unconscious throat. "He" wasn't trying to do anything but bleed quietly. Or maybe he was a noisy bleeder, I'm not sure :)
I misread that then. Still think TC did what he had to do.
|
|
Actually, his buddy decided to pour a potion down his unconscious throat. "He" wasn't trying to do anything but bleed quietly. Or maybe he was a noisy bleeder, I'm not sure :)
So instead of surrendering, a downed enemy decided to bandage himself to get back into the fight and kill you and your friends. Not even close to evil on your part. In fact, the cleric had it coming.
So in all honesty the guy could have had enough and surrendered after the potion revived him.
So in all honesty the guy could have had enough and surrendered after the potion revived him.Actually, his buddy decided to pour a potion down his unconscious throat. "He" wasn't trying to do anything but bleed quietly. Or maybe he was a noisy bleeder, I'm not sure :)
So instead of surrendering, a downed enemy decided to bandage himself to get back into the fight and kill you and your friends. Not even close to evil on your part. In fact, the cleric had it coming.
…or he could have started channeling and killed some party members. Considering that the players already failed to talk him out of attacking them on sight, its questionable he would be very eager to surrender.
I personally wouldn’t hold something like this against my players. While I agree that using a coup de grace on the guy wasn’t a very pleasant or desirable course of action, the player was stuck between a rock and a hard place. There were other options but they had a lot higher chance of failing and getting their friends killed.
No, I wasn't at your table :) The distance between you and both of them (the prone / helpless target and the other individual with the potion) should have been the same. You can't administer a potion to a prone individual from 5' away. The guy with the potion should have had to enter the other guys square and bend down to assist him with the potion.
I wasn't there either but he could have been five feet away from the cleric. He wouldn't threaten but could take a five foot step on his turn as a free action to deliver the coup de grace.
If the conclusion is that you performed an evil act, I cannot see how one can use those arguments to defend the action of the cleric. Thus feeding into a loop of evil vs. evil acts, which would make your action justified as neutral and perhaps even good.
This is my first instinct too
Not only did the cleric attack you... but he was kicking your butt!!! Three of your party would have DIED if you hadn't defended yourself there.
Now, spoilers aside (don't read those...) It appears this cleric was not IDENTIFIED as 'good' or even 'neutral' and frankly.... anyone who is neutral and starts a fight is no better than someone who is evil and starts a fight. What the alignment of the enemy is, is completely IRRELEVANT to the response of his ACTIONS. It's not fair to say it's ok to kill and evil cleric who attacked you for no reason... but it's not for the neutral cleric who attacked for no reason.
But if it's life or death your allowed to finish the fight as quickly and with the least amount of loss of life as possible. Even Paladins can kill under those circumstances. All that cleric needed to do was wake up and touch his holy/unholy symbol and everyone dies...
I play a Paladin of Sarenrae... Goddess of Redemption. If enemy is attacking, he's HAD his chance to surrender. The idea that you have to wake up everyone in the middle of combat and 'double check' is a bit insane. Especially in this world of SIX SECOND ROUNDS...
Seriously... Round 1 Cleric is attacking to kill... Round 2, he's unconsicious... Round 3 he'll be back up and attacking to kill...
That course of events is 18 seconds long.
As for Tacticslion...
Your CG assassin will walk a VERY narrow line... If I was DM, I'd allow it, but would watch him VERRRRRRRY carefully.
Based on your motivations and thought process... he DOES sound like he's 'CG'. I don't see him like 'Dexter' at all. He kills because he LIKES it. You kill to protect others from getting hurt...
He's actually more like the winchesters in Supernatural. They start out hunting only 'monsters'... but eventually moved up to witches and possessed and 'other' monsters with very human faces...
If it's ok to kill an orc or goblin who would blatantly kill an innocent and eat him... it's hypocritical to claim that a HUMAN who would kill and eat an innocent is 'untouchable'
Like I said, a VERY thin line... but could be fun to play. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I realize the GM, being a reasonable guy, already conceded the point, but I think he did so prematurely. Personally, I think he did it exactly right by calling it a minor evil act that has no overall consequences for the alignment of the character unless it becomes part of a pattern.
The keys for me are: 1) knowing the cleric is good-aligned; 2) that there were arguably other options available that also stood a strong chance (if not a guarantee) of protecting his party from further attack; and 3) the cleric was essentially helpless (regardless of the fact that due to magical healing and the illogic of the game system, a single round later he would not only be conscious but just as capable of combat as when he was at full hit points).
All that said, I'm glad I wasn't playing that scenario. I dislike scenarios that push characters into doing morally questionable acts.
I also see how others could disagree, based on their differing personal views on good/evil, morality, situational ethics and the rules of war, for example, and if I were at their table I wouldn't challenge them if they called it differently.
I find CDG a bit distasteful against any but irredeemable monsters, and against someone you know to be good-aligned I find it to be over the line. Mitigating factors such as the fact he still represents a threat, and the altruistic desire to save one's companions bring it back closer to the line, but not across it for me.
I conclude with one simple question: If the cleric in question had been a member of your party and an enemy CDGed him, would you consider it evil or just a fair and logical tactic? That's really the basis of a lot of the rules of war regarding treatment of prisoners and wounded enemy combatants -- would you want it done to your guys if they were in the same situation?
|
|
I also dislike CdG against neutral foes or any creature that has a chance at redemption, and I don't like setting a precedent for using CdG against PCs. However, in this situation I have to agree that the cleric was about to become a very immediate threat and had the character rolled poorly on an attempt to otherwise subdue the person administering the potion, the cleric was almost guaranteed to kill at least one party member on his next turn. It's evil to kill a helpless foe, but:
But someone who you KNOW is going to be awake in exactly one round, with both the ability and intent to kill you and your comrades? That's not the same kind of "helpless". That's more like "temporarily vulnerable".
Assuming that the cleric attacked the party and the party made at least some attempt in the beginning of combat to say "you're making a mistake, we don't want to fight you," I think this is a clear case of a regrettable but non-evil act of self-defense.
If it were allowed, I would say the correct course of action is to tell the person applying the potion "stop or I kill him now," giving him a chance to remove your motivation for using a CdG against the cleric. If he backs off, you both stabilize your fallen and wake them up under circumstances in which they will parley rather than resuming the fight. If he doesn't immediately back off you can CdG. But I'm not sure whether in PFS delivering that sort of ultimatum would be considered a free action, and in any case in the heat of combat I wouldn't fault the character for not thinking of it.
This is Pathfinder not 3.5. [url]="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/potions.html"]There is no mention of sharing a 5' square in the PRD for potions.[/url] You don't even share a square for pinning anymore. I think the sole case of two creatures of size small or larger sharing a square are if one is riding the other or if one is moving through the other's space.
It doesn't say anything about distance at all. It doesn't even say you need to be adjacent (5'). Can I do it from 10 feet then? It presumes for the most part that you are drinking / applying the potion / oil to yourself. The only reference that is on task is the time to pour it down an unconscious throat. The rules do allow for you to be in the same square at the end of movement as a helpless character (friend or enemy)*. Given the horizontal and vertical distance between an adjacent (standing) and prone helpless character I'd say it's likely that you would have to be both in the same square and crouched there (unless you just happen to be holding him upright -- and then you'd be in the same square anyway). You could FAQ this, but I think common sense could be applied more easily. Ymmv.
* Core Rulebook, pg. 193 "Ending Your Movement: You can’t end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless."
@chaoseffect; I'm not saying he didn't do what he believed he had to. I've even said I might do the same. As always it's easier to make these choices when you're the Monday morning quarterback.
The keys for me are: 1) knowing the cleric is good-aligned; 2) that there were arguably other options available that also stood a strong chance (if not a guarantee) of protecting his party from further attack; and 3) the cleric was essentially helpless (regardless of the fact that due to magical healing and the illogic of the game system, a single round later he would not only be conscious but just as capable of combat as when he was at full hit points).
In regards to people saying that he had other options besides killing the guy, that's hindsight talking. If you want to think of it in terms of the 12-18 seconds that the actions were occurring in-character, he had to make a snap decision to save his and his friends lives.
In response to the bold, what other options of guaranteeing his survival to the next round (as he was a channel away from going down along with his friends) did he have? And for those options would they have been obvious given the snap judgement time frame or are they only obvious when you look back on it?
Also, as far as helpless is concerned, you agreed it was a temporary moment of weakness; would it have been better if he could have readied an action to stab the guy in the throat as soon as his eyes opened?
|
|
So in all honesty the guy could have had enough and surrendered after the potion revived him.
The PCs were quite correctly convinced that the cleric would NOT have immediately surrendered. There are spoilers up thread explaining why but you can take it as a given that the cleric WOULD not immediately surrender if he could still channel.
If the PCs could stop him from acting for a round or two without killing him they might then have been able to talk him down. But not in the nanosecond or two between him coming awake and trying to attack the party.
|
|
I play a Paladin of Sarenrae... Goddess of Redemption.
You're going to have to read some of the spoilers for details. The PCs were completely aware that the Cleric was attacking them in good faith.
Despite my having changed my mind on the act in general, I'd absolutely have s Paladin of Sarenrae lose her paladinhood for killing the cleric (lose it until she could cast an antonement spell). Paldins are held to a higher standard. She would absolutely KNOW that the Cleric could very definitely have been redeemed.
Sometimes Paladins are caught in a situation where there is no right answer. This would be one of them.
I'd also have no real sympathy for the player since a Paladin of Saranrae would have options to convince the cleric that were not available to a Oracle of Bones.
EDIT:
Beware, I'm about to cast, !
nifty assassin stuff, shortened for the purposes of this conversation, as I don't necessarily disagree with them:And, for the record, most trained and -successful- long term assassins are actually lawful neutral or true neutral. They have to be for the following 3 reasons:1. They're concerned with the contract(lawful tendencies), they kill good guys and bad guys evenly.
2. Anything remotely resembling chaotic gets them killed by their employers, since they can't trust them in the future.
3. Being truly evil gets them hunted down for all the other things they do in life besides the killing of the odd mark.
Look at Bond, example given by others, he's the quintessential example of true neutral with lawful tendencies. He gets the job done, no matter the method or the cost. He ignores any mores of the people at large, and is only brushing with lawful tendencies in that he works for an organization and accepts its guidance about where and who to practice on(usually).
The example above, the chaotic good assassin, should probably be more described as true neutral. He's only concerned with the results.
... except he's not only concerned about "results", and is extraordinarily picky and selective about whom he accepts a contract on and why. He does his homework thoroughly, when possible, and will not make a contract on someone who isn't thoroughly "deserving" of it: he's not just going around killin' dudes who did that thing that time, he actually seeks to know if someone is currently in a position in which they are legally (for whatever reason) unable to be touched or handled, and are (more or less) currently and/or continually performing similar actions.
As he's first level, he's not taken down many (if any; it's a little ambiguous on purpose to give the GM some wiggle room) high profile highly careful targets, but you don't have to be high level to be evil or untouchable by the law, you just have to have enough money or be in certain situations that make it advantageous enough to be ignored.
A slightly eccentric (and secretly completely insane) but very wealthy Chelaxian slave-owner delights in importing new "pretties" from Garund, and then "freeing them via export" to other countries: said actions are an open secret among the wealthy who disdain the poor creature, but he's wealthy and one of the elite, so what'r'you gonna do. Meanwhile a series of homicide case where Garundi people branded as slaves are continually found strangled to death in rather unfortunately suggestive conditions by the side of a road roughly once a month; their faces and heads have been destroyed so they can't be identified or spoken with. Given that he's their owner, and the harsh laws of Cheliax, he couldn't even be prosecuted if it was him.
Seems open and shut (and it might be), but he doesn't just presume and mete out "justice", regardless of his personal feelings on the matter. Instead, he takes his time, gathers rumors and sets out feelers over a few weeks or a month keeping careful tabs on everyone in or around the manor (all while being a visiting herbalist merchant). And, if he finds out the guy is guilty (usually by being somewhere dark at night using his superior vision to watch events begin to unfold or his superior bluffing, sleight of hand, and stealth abilities to locate ironclad but not often legally binding proof), and since the law can't do anything, he acts (usually working to stop the killer before he kills). If, on the other hand, it's one of the guy's servants, or an enemy seeking to frame him, or something unrelated, he deals with those as appropriate (usually stopping the killer in the act, but if he can't for some reason, he'd ensure anonymous but ironclad proof of the slave's villainy was discovered; or perhaps take out the rival noble - who wasn't, according to the law, "doing anything wrong", per se, even if it was "distasteful"; or perhaps some other appropriate action).
It's happened that people try to trick him. He's aware of his own fallibility, so he maintains a distance between himself and those who would hire him, and he only accepts contracts through intermediaries indicating that someone wants a contract (and about what), at which point he begins investigating substantially before the initial meeting ever takes place. He learns all that can be possibly learned about the would-be employer and the would-be target (taking 20 whenever possible subtly), and never accepts his initial conclusion. He also learns about the local law any any loopholes that can allow evasion of justice. He then discerns whether or not the potential contract is a viable target (a clear and present danger to the community who has also previously acted to harm, oppress, and/or defraud the poor, weak, and innocent). At least once, he learned that a would-be employer was the villain, and literally turned the tables when they had their meeting (and assassinating said would-be employer).
There's a reason Desna is a primary patron and he travels often (on one-way journeys).
As for Tacticslion...
Your CG assassin will walk a VERY narrow line... If I was DM, I'd allow it, but would watch him VERRRRRRRY carefully.Based on your motivations and thought process... he DOES sound like he's 'CG'. I don't see him like 'Dexter' at all. He kills because he LIKES it {}. You kill to protect others from getting hurt...
He's {} actually more like the winchesters in Supernatural. They start out hunting only 'monsters'... but eventually moved up to witches and possessed and 'other' monsters with very human faces...
If it's ok to kill an orc or goblin who would blatantly kill an innocent and eat him... it's hypocritical to claim that a HUMAN who would kill and eat an innocent is 'untouchable'
Like I said, a VERY thin line... but could be fun to play. :)
That's pretty much the same line he takes. He's aware that his job is an unpleasant one, and one fraught with flirtations with the darkness (literally and figuratively). There's also a reason neither Achaekek or Norgberger are on his list of patrons. () He's all too aware of how easily he could slip, so he doesn't allow himself the luxury of praying to either of the gods who're actually in charge of his job because they are both evil.
His thought process is that if someone abuses and manipulates the law to kill, corrupt, and harm the poor, weak, and innocent (and they pose a clear and present problem to the community), they no longer deserve to derive any of the benefits of said law, including the right to life.
Updates, if you're curious:
Current Module (Also: this module is awesome... and so appropriate!)
A near-perfect soundtrack, theme-wise (only really diverging in theme and semi-appropriate lyrics with The Good Doctor, Light up the Night, and Here Comes the Arm)
EDIT:
Halgrak's toes have been destroyed (Jegan didn't know if they'd come back as some diseased undead or something, like Ebin and his tongue, though the GM has since explained the significance of this action), the ghoul-stirge (a poor naming choice for an undead bipedal bird-like creature with an ant's face and a mosquito's proboscis) destroyed (with intent to return and recover the body to make "free" paralyzing toxins!), as is the dead puppet-constable-zombie-thing upstairs, and the flock of undead ravens on the ground floor.
They've managed to spring just about every haunt and trap imaginable.
It's 10:20 PM, leaving 40 minutes (I believe) before the next disappearance, insanity, and/or death and an hour and forty minutes before the truly guilty show up. Here's hoping I can keep everyone alive and sane until then.
Jegan's learned pretty much all the secrets of everyone and their reasons for voting guilty (except, maybe Malgrim, as he died first and was a real jerk before that, though most of Malgrim's involvement has been uncovered) and is pretty daggum certain that it's Alastair Wade who did this whole thing. Everyone trusts him (especially thanks to Patrissa's early backup of his taking charge by claiming him as "our detective", though Patrissa does so because she now believes that he's the original Yittar through some poppycock story about his people and strange cycles of lives, explaining his youthful appearance and different voice/accent - ) and his vague warnings to Malgrim about sticking together lest they get killed, followed rather promptly by Malgrim ignoring him... and shortly thereafter getting killed.
Thanks to "Killian" (whose real identity he learned), he's learned that Alastair Wade and Silman Trabe (the two primary suspects) are going to show up at midnight, and the true "price" the spirit of Mord demands.
All that's occurred, and, throughout the whole event, his response to people has been:
- jump in front of/cover them from various attacks (basically taking the hit for anyone else, though especially Madge, see below)
- make sure the monsters are focused on him, whenever possible
- generally being in the front so he takes the brunt of everything for anyone else (though Madge is also often up front with him because she can find traps and look for clues well)
- work really hard to make sure everyone understands the seriousness of the situation stays together and works to keep everyone alive
- note the above, even though he knows for a fact that several people purposefully perverted justice...
EXAMPLE SPOILERS AHOY!:... because those people don't definitively deserve to be murdered and turned into undead, despite their one-off misdeed ten years ago (although entries two and four are debatable from what he's learned). He's taken personal responsibility for the lives and safety of these people and does his best to shepherd them and keep them alive, despite any misdeeds they've committed (though he might not have actually cared to try for Malgrim, considering what he now knows).... Madge voted guilty out of misguided "revenge" for her father's death...
... Ebin voted guilty out of evil, pointless spite and bitterness...
... Malgrim voted guilty because, in all likelihood, he was paid (and he was cruel, rapacious, and evil, besides; and he murdered a judge who didn't try the case while said judge was writing a confession that he knew that Mord was innocent but allowed the mistrial to happen anyway)...
... Patrissa voted guilty because she was given a stupidly expensive necklace and was sleeping with Alastair Wade (and sometimes still does), though she claimed not to know why he wanted her to do so; at the request of Wade she also charmed and manipulated the Paladin, the dwarf, the twins, and (possibly, though I don't know) the original Killian; and seduced or enchanted Yittar - the original fetchling juror that was replaced by Jegan - into voting guilty and twisted them (especially the paladin) into believing that the weakest of circumstantial evidence was enough to do so (he believes there was stronger evidence at the time, but neither he nor anyone else can come up with it)...
He doesn't particularly care about what the law says: clearly, the law failed ten years ago, and everyone has payed the price until now. This adventure is exactly the reason he acts as he does, and the importance and moral certitude of his job has been hammered into him all the more by the nature of the adventure.
()
EDIT: (P.S. No spoilers on the modules, unless you place them behind spoiler tags for me! Thanks in advance!)
Also edited for word choices, sentence correction, and some clarification of points.
Double post mostly because I'm curious and it's slightly off-topic: how's Mergy's and pauljathome's game going now?
*Said a lot related to honorable / dishonorable conduct and reletavistic views of good and evil and social mores.*
Sorry but this had nothing to do with Japanese concepts of honor (which had damn all to do with good / evil anyway) or cultural - social relativism. This had to do with "good and evil" as defined in D&D / PF alignment terms, which is largely based on western ideas about it.
I can see some of your points, but complaints about social justice and wealthy noble warrior castes (by which you mean classes I gather) can be taken up at other times.
One thing though, if you think all is fair in war the UCMJ, the Geneva Convention and International Law would like to have a few words with you :) That guy on trial for mudering 16 civilians (including 9 children) while on deployment probably agrees with you though.
the noble warrior caste of (insert region here.) by caste, i mean social class, not character class. i used a synonym to differentiate the two.
the geneva convention is a fairly modern invention. and likely doesn't exist in a fantasy setting, especially in such a setting where there are dozens of nonhuman races and deciding which section of the code applies to which group of races, is a form of discrimination in itself. and adventurers slay orcish civilians all the time, even if indirectly. there is more to a tribe than just warriors and shamans. by slaying the warriors and shamans of an orcish tribe, you are dooming the orcish civilians to die to the 'empowered' predators. which is indirect slaughter. the same thing applies when you whipe out a signifficant portion of a nations military force and leave not enough to protect the civilians.
plus civilian, doesn't always mean helpless commoner. there are plenty who know thier way around a weapon or few.
that hypothetical middle eastern child who willingly strapped the explosive vest to his body and volunteered to suicide bomb american people, is no longer a civilian, but a soldier. as far as i feel.
the noble warrior caste of (insert region here.) by caste, i mean social class, not character class. i used a synonym to differentiate the two.
Caste and class are not synonyms; similar but with distinct differences.
the geneva convention is a fairly modern invention. and likely doesn't exist in a fantasy setting, especially in such a setting where there are dozens of nonhuman races and deciding which section of the code applies to which group of races, is a form of discrimination in itself. and adventurers slay orcish civilians all the time, even if indirectly. there is more to a tribe than just warriors and shamans. by slaying the warriors and shamans of an orcish tribe, you are dooming the orcish civilians to die to the 'empowered' predators. which is indirect slaughter. the same thing applies when you whipe out a signifficant portion of a nations military force and leave not enough to protect the civilians.
The Geneva Convention is new, the ideas of rules for warfare is not. The Code of Chivalry, in all it's variations, varuious Church edicts (i.e. banning crossbows use in war between Christians) and other odds and ends over the centuries all attempted to set rules / control the level of violence in warfare. Discrimination in who the rules apply to has always been present (cf the crossbow edict mentioned above). As for helpless Orcish civilians, what might happen as a result of "legitimate" combat is a bit beyond the purvue of your typical grunts, whatever the century.
plus civilian, doesn't always mean helpless commoner. there are plenty who know thier way around a weapon or few.
When you take up arms you cease to be a civilian. That's been true throughout history. In the Middle Ages civilians were "the innocent", in theory anyway, and a knight's duty was to protect them. Not everyone lived up to it of course and as "civilians" became increasingly involved (due to having their field burned, looting, defending themselves, etc.) this waspretty widely ignored.
that hypothetical middle eastern child who willingly strapped the explosive vest to his body and volunteered to suicide bomb american people, is no longer a civilian, but a soldier. as far as i feel.
I agree with you there, but I'm not talking about people who have rendered themselves combatant. Talking about 16 civilians who were murdered in the middle of the night. The soldier thought to be responsible responsible is currently facing a court martial and the military prosecutors want the death penalty. Apparently they are intent on enforcing the rules of war in their current form.
There have always been attempts to limit or control the violence involved in war. We are in a much better position to do so today than in the past.
*edit* And I'd say the magically active societies of the D&D / PF multiverse are in a better position to do so as well.
there are plenty of civilians in the states of Nevada, Georgia, and Texas who know thier way around a hunting rifle for the purpose of hunting for food. they aren't professional soldiers. but they can hold thier own against a grunt or few. i would consider them a case of farmers who defend themselves.
i don't think being skilled enough to hunt deer with a rifle makes you a soldier. being a professional soldier requires all sorts of specialized education beyond the realm of a civilian.
a farmer defending thier burning field with his scythe is still a civilian. they aren't a career soldier, and they had no intention of being involved in the war.
where in the case of the child who willingly donned the explosive vest, they intended to harm others.
Double post mostly because I'm curious and it's slightly off-topic: how's Mergy's and pauljathome's game going now?It's Pathfinder Society Organized Play, so I guess it's going pretty well?
Sorry, I don't use that, so I wouldn't know the scheduling or process involved (and I don't know if it's on this forum or not). You just got me interested in the story. :)
The keys for me are: 1) knowing the cleric is good-aligned; 2) that there were arguably other options available that also stood a strong chance (if not a guarantee) of protecting his party from further attack; and 3) the cleric was essentially helpless (regardless of the fact that due to magical healing and the illogic of the game system, a single round later he would not only be conscious but just as capable of combat as when he was at full hit points).
In regards to people saying that he had other options besides killing the guy, that's hindsight talking. If you want to think of it in terms of the 12-18 seconds that the actions were occurring in-character, he had to make a snap decision to save his and his friends lives.
In response to the bold, what other options of guaranteeing his survival to the next round (as he was a channel away from going down along with his friends) did he have? And for those options would they have been obvious given the snap judgement time frame or are they only obvious when you look back on it?
Also, as far as helpless is concerned, you agreed it was a temporary moment of weakness; would it have been better if he could have readied an action to stab the guy in the throat as soon as his eyes opened?
I agree with you, but hindsight is pretty much what the guy who started the thread was asking for, isn't it?
I actually agree that, in the stress of the situation, the PC has to make a decision. It may not be the best decision, but it's probably the best one he can think of at the time. However, an important part of making decisions and acting on them is living with the consequences. I think the GM-determined consequences in this one, relatively minor and measured, are appropriate.
I agree that CDG may have been the only thing he could do to absolutely guarantee the safety of himself and the rest of his team, although many other options, many discussed above, would have also had a pretty strong chance of succeeding. For me, however, that's not sufficient. If you are willing to kill someone in order to avoid any risk at all to yourself and your comrades, then you've strayed across the line. Not into big, blaring EVIL territory, but into garden-variety, guilty conscience, wish I could have found a better way evil territory.
And, out of curiousity, how would you answer my question? If the cleric were a member of your party and someone else CDGed him, would you still say it wasn't evil?