In the recent game I'm in, the party was in a village helping a nice kindly old female herbalist protect her village against an enemy necromancer witch. The party ran into a large group of mercs hired to capture the old lady. Killed a fair number of the mercs but the old lady was killed in the struggle. The mercs were hired on a legal contract but my lawful good character didn't decide to do subdue damage because lets see, being surrounded by something like 13 mercs trying to skewer and cleave him seemed very dangerous. So he killed a fair number of them to protect the old lady. Its always ridiculous how certains tags like lawful or good-aligned supposedly always prevent a character from going all out. Thus sticking them between doing the right thing and killing to protect the innocent, then becoming evil because murder is supposedly evil, no matter the reason or goals behind it. Not surprising why players don't play good-aligned characters in certain games since they are either nerfed 90% of the time or eventually become neutral from killing too many people/creatures/etc. I do agree that a good-aligned character should try redemption when its possible but when that fails, then the gloves come off.
You spared some of them, bribed those that remained and won them over with the idea of an easier job in the future.
And there's justice in killing off mercs hired for a job?If the job was guard a caravan no. If he job is hack a little old lady to pieces, yes.
It was. Its one of the reasons good kills.Was peeling back the double-standard about "good-aligned character should try redemption when possible" dodge: if you simply decide it isn't possible, without making an attempt, so you don't have to try...
Also, justice wasn't in the mix before you brought it up. Just sayin'.
Nope. One of the reasons law kills. Justice isn't an inherently good or evil proposition.
EDIT: And according to the description, they were hired to capture said little old lady. Her untimely death might well have been avoided had some other method of dealing with the mercenaries been pursued.
Do you not read?
"...had some other method of dealing with the mercenaries been pursued."
Y'know? Back to that "attempt redemption" thing that should be going on for good folks? Which was not, as far as I can tell, attempted.
[/snark, yourself]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. Let's look at the situation.
In the recent game I'm in, the party was in a village helping a nice kindly old female herbalist protect her village against an enemy necromancer witch. The party ran into a large group of mercs hired to capture the old lady. Killed a fair number of the mercs but the old lady was killed in the struggle. The mercs were hired on a legal contract but my lawful good character didn't decide to do subdue damage because lets see, being surrounded by something like 13 mercs trying to skewer and cleave him seemed very dangerous. So he killed a fair number of them to protect the old lady. Its always ridiculous how certains tags like lawful or good-aligned supposedly always prevent a character from going all out. Thus sticking them between doing the right thing and killing to protect the innocent, then becoming evil because murder is supposedly evil, no matter the reason or goals behind it. Not surprising why players don't play good-aligned characters in certain games since they are either nerfed 90% of the time or eventually become neutral from killing too many people/creatures/etc. I do agree that a good-aligned character should try redemption when its possible but when that fails, then the gloves come off.
Facts:
- Kindly old female herbalist trying to protect her village
- Necromancer Witch trying to ??? the village (thus the village needing protection)
- ??? hired mercenaries to capture the first.
- In the process of attempting to protect the old lady from the mercenaries, she died
- A guy used lethal damage to prevent said mercs (who were apparently also dealing lethal damage) from taking the lady against her will
First of all, mercenaries are, by nature, mercenary. So you could likely hire them instead! ... if you have enough money.
However they'd also likely be professional, or else they won't stay in the business long (or won't do well for themselves). So hiring might well be off the table (and likely is).
The mercenaries were knowingly and willing attempting a wrongful action against an innocent party (the lawful good character at least, and presumably the kindly old herbalist, based on the best faith reading of the situation).
Using lethal force (or else it would have been impossible for the old lady to have died in the struggle, save by some random mischance of a fireball or four). And surrounding the character menacingly.
No, lethal force is entirely justified, from what I can see. "Why, yes, I feel that negotiating with these obviously fine fellows who are threatening the life of an old woman who seeks to protect her village from the necromancer are clearly reasonable and thus I should talk to them." Take note from Kyra's back story: the priestesses attempted negotiation and were all killed, as were their charges. Not the wisest use of tactics, I'd say, and many innocent people suffered for it.
EDIT: continuing post because I hit the wrong button. Whoooooooooops!
Good is defines in the rules as altruism and respect for the dignity of all sentient beings, amongst other things.
So I don't think a Good-aligned person's response to a situation is FIRST going to be to kill another sentient being. Situations may force them to defend themselves or protect someone else from another's destructive actions, and sometimes the foe gets killed. A good-aligned person regrets that sentient being's death but accepts they may have had little choice if others were not to have been harmed.
And of course anthropomorphisations of evil and mindless creatures trying to eat your brain--I don't think we need to argue that they are probably killable without much remorse to be had.
As for individual cases of "is this evil" -- that's up to you, your GM, and the situation at hand. End of story.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removed some posts. Keep this about gaming-related topics, or it will be locked.
Nope. One of the reasons law kills. Justice isn't an inherently good or evil proposition.
Law kills because the law says to kill. Good often kills because it feels the person deserves it. The difference is that lawful good believes in a centralized authority that can make that decision, wheras chaotic believes that the justification comes from the individual.
If Lawful Good can execute a murderer; putting the power of life and death in the hands of a court, then chaotic good can kill a murderer, putting the power of life and death in the hands of an individual.
EDIT: And according to the description, they were hired to capture said little old lady. Her untimely death might well have been avoided had some other method of dealing with the mercenaries been pursued.
in the process of armed kidnapping, they toss in a side of attempted murder (the paladin).. yes , that warrants a lethal response.
Removed some posts. Keep this about gaming-related topics, or it will be locked.
Thank you.
As a spectator, it would be fantastic if we could let threads go a bit more, and not close them over and over when a few step out of line (two hander thread recently).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a spectator, it would be fantastic if we could let threads go a bit more, and not close them over and over when a few step out of line (two hander thread recently).
As a moderator, it would be fantastic if contentious threads actually followed the messageboard rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a spectator, it would be fantastic if we could let threads go a bit more, and not close them over and over when a few step out of line (two hander thread recently).As a moderator, it would be fantastic if contentious threads actually followed the messageboard rules.
As a parent, how can I be sure my kids are eating a proper breakfast?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm wondering how killing of sentient life, "in the name of good" is regarded in traditional SRD alignment.
I personally think the only good way to deal with this question is to ask yourself "To which moral authority does the character answer to?"
Those with religious affiliations are going to evaluate morality based upon their faith. You, in your role of DM, are going to have to present deviations from sanctioned morality out to the players. For example, Supreme Matriarch Anisse may come to question how the players are able to collect such lucrative tithes, and then balk at the concept that this is all blood money. Or, perhaps, Supreme Matriarch Anisse is actively sanctioning the killing and is even going so far as to providing active support to the group.
The chaotics are going to enact morality based most likely on their own personal moral compass. The deaths may weigh heavy on the players, even though they felt their actions both justified and necessary (the very basis of many forms of PTSD) or merely the first in a string of long and bloody events that will eventually culminate in some sort of personal reward.
As a DM, I think if I were in this situation, I'd even throw it back into the players' laps and make them justify it out for themselves. It's good role play and will make the players think.
One thing I would never do is railroad my players because of some sort of personal DM agenda. If the characters want to play paladins, then let them. Give them story lines where they have to consider which paths to take - the expedient ones or the moralistic "high roads".
As a spectator, it would be fantastic if we could let threads go a bit more, and not close them over and over when a few step out of line (two hander thread recently).As a moderator, it would be fantastic if contentious threads actually followed the messageboard rules.
What matters more, the discussion, topics and what can be brought to the table, or the rules?
The "Lawful" answer is easy, but not everyone is lawful, some are even gosh darn-it, abrasive in written tone.
This shouldn't be about following a strict diet, it should be the breakfast of champions.
I'm wondering how killing of sentient life, "in the name of good" is regarded in traditional SRD alignment.I personally think the only good way to deal with this question is to ask yourself "To which moral authority does the character answer to?"
Those with religious affiliations are going to evaluate morality based upon their faith. You, in your role of DM, are going to have to present deviations from sanctioned morality out to the players. For example, Supreme Matriarch Anisse may come to question how the players are able to collect such lucrative tithes, and then balk at the concept that this is all blood money. Or, perhaps, Supreme Matriarch Anisse is actively sanctioning the killing and is even going so far as to providing active support to the group.
The chaotics are going to enact morality based most likely on their own personal moral compass. The deaths may weigh heavy on the players, even though they felt their actions both justified and necessary (the very basis of many forms of PTSD) or merely the first in a string of long and bloody events that will eventually culminate in some sort of personal reward.
As a DM, I think if I were in this situation, I'd even throw it back into the players' laps and make them justify it out for themselves. It's good role play and will make the players think.
One thing I would never do is railroad my players because of some sort of personal DM agenda. If the characters want to play paladins, then let them. Give them story lines where they have to consider which paths to take - the expedient ones or the moralistic "high roads".
The throw-back. Only problem is, a pc may take the most tenuous of reasons and use it as a reason to not follow their alignment. E.g. Neutral good druid uses the point that gnomes hate lizardmen to justify exterminating neutral and evil lizardmen, even killing them when they surrender. I put it back to the player and they dug their heels in, nothing was out of place here they insisted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just when i thought alignment discussions couldn't get weirder, now its about wheaties...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...stuff...
I think we could fill a room with 100 people, and get 100 definitions on "lawful good" actions. It's why I leave it to the individual player and their DM to work out.
This is a game. Not everyone is going to come to the identical concensus on exactly how it is supposed to be played. In fact, most RPGs even state up front that the rules are more like guidelines ... <in my best Pirate jargon>
That we could.
I have been surprised the direction some people have taken the alignments. We settle into what we think it is, and stand against all comers!
In the recent game I'm in, the party was in a village helping a nice kindly old female herbalist protect her village against an enemy necromancer witch. The party ran into a large group of mercs hired to capture the old lady. Killed a fair number of the mercs but the old lady was killed in the struggle. The mercs were hired on a legal contract but my lawful good character didn't decide to do subdue damage because lets see, being surrounded by something like 13 mercs trying to skewer and cleave him seemed very dangerous. So he killed a fair number of them to protect the old lady. Its always ridiculous how certains tags like lawful or good-aligned supposedly always prevent a character from going all out. Thus sticking them between doing the right thing and killing to protect the innocent, then becoming evil because murder is supposedly evil, no matter the reason or goals behind it. Not surprising why players don't play good-aligned characters in certain games since they are either nerfed 90% of the time or eventually become neutral from killing too many people/creatures/etc. I do agree that a good-aligned character should try redemption when its possible but when that fails, then the gloves come off.
You killed them in battle. That is not murder, that is self defense, it is not evil, and has nothing at all with what the thread was discussing. So yes, a LG character could have done, a paladin could have done it.
If you had read the thread you would notice that that kind of situation had already been pointed out and cleared.
In the recent game I'm in, the party was in a village helping a nice kindly old female herbalist protect her village against an enemy necromancer witch. The party ran into a large group of mercs hired to capture the old lady. Killed a fair number of the mercs but the old lady was killed in the struggle. The mercs were hired on a legal contract but my lawful good character didn't decide to do subdue damage because lets see, being surrounded by something like 13 mercs trying to skewer and cleave him seemed very dangerous. So he killed a fair number of them to protect the old lady. Its always ridiculous how certains tags like lawful or good-aligned supposedly always prevent a character from going all out. Thus sticking them between doing the right thing and killing to protect the innocent, then becoming evil because murder is supposedly evil, no matter the reason or goals behind it. Not surprising why players don't play good-aligned characters in certain games since they are either nerfed 90% of the time or eventually become neutral from killing too many people/creatures/etc. I do agree that a good-aligned character should try redemption when its possible but when that fails, then the gloves come off.You killed them in battle. That is not murder, that is self defense, it is not evil, and has nothing at all with what the thread was discussing. So yes, a LG character could have done, a paladin could have done it.
If you had read the thread you would notice that that kind of situation had already been pointed out and cleared.
Depends on who starts it, really. If you are attacked, self-defense applies. But if you are the attacker, murder may well be applicable. In the case of fighting mercenaries with a legal contract... may not be so cut and dried. And did the PCs' intervention lead to the death of the old lady rather than her capture?