Having an evil alignment is not sufficient justification for execution.
Being a member of a usually-evil race is not sufficient justification for execution.
Justice implies an appropriate degree of punishment for evil actions. From what the OP stated, these slaves weren't a danger to anyone at the time they were freed. They hadn't committed any crimes that the OP's player had witnessed.
A good person would take that as an opportunity to attempt to lead by example-- to show these wretched (though possibly evil) former slaves what altruism and self-sacrifice can do. Perhaps seeing what a good person can do would make a positive impression. IT may very well not work, but a good person will offer the chance of redemption.
What to do with them? Lead them back to a relatively friendly drow settlement. Or lead them to a place where they can set up their own society. Or give them arms and supplies and lead them as reluctant allies against a common enemy. Or make sure they have food and water and leave them to their own devices. There are a LOT of possibilities.
Could this backfire? Of course. But a good person will give them a chance.
What if they reject their chance at redemption and do more evil stuff? That's what the sword is for.
How should we instead have killed the drow then?
Convince them to make a full frontal assault on the driders. They would have likely died, but that would have been given the chance to go down fighting.
For me the real telling point is that the guy felt the need to lie about it. That tells me that even he knew it was wrong.
You're missing the point. Killing them is a choice. Just don't pretend it was a "good" one.Stupid good doesn't care about what someone will do, but is endlessly and needlessly forgiving. I'm not a fan of stupid good.
Never said it was a good act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wanna debunk a myth here:
Killing evildoers is not, and never will be, a good act.
By the present rules for alignment, killing anyone is, at best, a neutral act.
-Nearyn
Having an evil alignment is not sufficient justification for execution.
Being a member of a usually-evil race is not sufficient justification for execution.
Justice implies an appropriate degree of punishment for evil actions. From what the OP stated, these slaves weren't a danger to anyone at the time they were freed. They hadn't committed any crimes that the OP's player had witnessed.
A good person would take that as an opportunity to attempt to lead by example-- to show these wretched (though possibly evil) former slaves what altruism and self-sacrifice can do. Perhaps seeing what a good person can do would make a positive impression. IT may very well not work, but a good person will offer the chance of redemption.
What to do with them? Lead them back to a relatively friendly drow settlement. Or lead them to a place where they can set up their own society. Or give them arms and supplies and lead them as reluctant allies against a common enemy. Or make sure they have food and water and leave them to their own devices. There are a LOT of possibilities.
Could this backfire? Of course. But a good person will give them a chance.
What if they reject their chance at redemption and do more evil stuff? That's what the sword is for.
Another way to look at it is via statistics. Lets assume for argument sake that on average out of 100 members of a given "evil" race, 94 grow up to do unspeakable evil, 5 come out neutral, and 1 ends up good.
Now, you find a group of 20, and you kill them all.
There is a 29% chance that all 20 of those creatures would have done unspeakable evil if allowed to live.
There is a 53% chance you killed a neutral bystander.
Finally, there is a 18% chance you killed someone who was going to grow up to be a good person.
Further, all of the above assumes that you character has no influence over those 20 specific members of the race. What if you character's actions change the distribution for that group to 80% evil/10% neutral/10% good? Now there is a 99% chance that you killed a person who would have been a good or neutral person.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is what I would do:
No alignment shift. Instead, since he is NG, I would have the character experience nightmares about the dying drow, lungs filling with burning gas. When he wakes up screaming and remains Fatigued hours after doing so, he might get the message.
Now if the player tries to act like he did the right thing, and that there is no need for regret, then the nightmares would stop and he could shift to Neutral alignment. If however he talked about it, maybe confessed to a member of his church or a good aligned one, then he could probably forgive himself. In any case I don't think he would do such a thing again too fast.
BTW, I am stealing this idea. This is a very solid way to deal with players who act outside their normal alignment. You give them some kind of hint that they did something wrong, then you give them a choice to repent or accept it.
This would even work for other character alignments.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All the threads like these popping up recently makes me feel like I'm the only one who still plays games where the monsters are evil and the good guys (PCs) kill them heroically.
Then I remember that Paizo still puts out a line of excellent APs and modules with no shortage of evil monsters to slay and stuff to take, and I feel better.
Anyway.
What, exactly, is so evil about killing Drow?
Is it killing evil monsters using trickery or deceit?
Were the Rouges in your campaigns dissapointed to learn that using bluff or Sneak Attacking are evil?
Is it killing helpless Monsters? Is Coup-de-Gras also evil?
Is poison evil? I thought we had evolved beyond that. Are swords evil? They kill things too, quite painfully.
Is killing evil monsters painfully evil? Swords hurt, Bleed hurts, Fireballs hurt. Are they evil? Subdual damage hurts, but doesn't kill. Is it evil?
Is killing evil monsters evil, period? Are all the Paladins in your campaigns non-violent pacifists?
Are all the Good-alligned characters pacifists? Do most adventures consist of non-violently arresting the evil monsters and taking them to trial?
Is allowing evil monsters to hurt and kill innocents because of your own inaction evil?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All the threads like these popping up recently makes me feel like I'm the only one who still plays games where the monsters are evil and the good guys (PCs) kill them heroically.
Then I remember that Paizo still puts out a line of excellent APs and modules with no shortage of evil monsters to slay and stuff to take, and I feel better.
Anyway.
What, exactly, is so evil about killing Drow?
Is it killing evil monsters using trickery or deceit?
Were the Rouges in your campaigns dissapointed to learn that using bluff or Sneak Attacking are evil?Is it killing helpless Monsters? Is Coup-de-Gras also evil?
Is poison evil? I thought we had evolved beyond that. Are swords evil? They kill things too, quite painfully.
Is killing evil monsters painfully evil? Swords hurt, Bleed hurts, Fireballs hurt. Are they evil? Subdual damage hurts, but doesn't kill. Is it evil?
Is killing evil monsters evil, period? Are all the Paladins in your campaigns non-violent pacifists?
Are all the Good-alligned characters pacifists? Do most adventures consist of non-violently arresting the evil monsters and taking them to trial?
Is allowing evil monsters to hurt and kill innocents because of your own inaction evil?
You aren't the only one quantum Steve; but these "don't kill evil types that would make you evil" are very loud on boards. I don't understand their perspective, but I hear it a lot.
Heroes oppose the forces of darkness, and axeing an evil orc/ogre/drow opponent a question of alignment is not an evil act. Tee hee. Now murdering vulnerable weak evil actors like drow slaves that come into your power but are not your enemies is an abuse of power so it does start to get more complicated. These are not wonderful rosy do-gooders, but they could be put on a better path. I am reminded of being attacked by desperate escaped slaves trying to take my stuff in a game last night, and that is what could happen, but does not have to happen (but it is easily prevented with some gifts, rp and checks to settle them).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"He hates and loves the Ring, as he hates and loves himself. He will never be rid of his need for it."
"It's pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had a chance!"
"Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. And some that died deserve life. Can you give it to them Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"He hates and loves the Ring, as he hates and loves himself. He will never be rid of his need for it."
"It's pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had a chance!"
"Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. And some that died deserve life. Can you give it to them Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many."
It would take an epic DM to spin a story that good including this band of evil Drow fighting for evil and ultimately saving the pure in heart from themselves... though would invite it. Usually, Drow are just Drow, not epic universe altering Drow.
"He hates and loves the Ring, as he hates and loves himself. He will never be rid of his need for it."
"It's pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had a chance!"
"Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. And some that died deserve life. Can you give it to them Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many."
I found that part of the film pathetic and wishy washy. As if he is putting Frodo on the path of non-violence. Gandalf would also later beat and chop up orcs in battle, clearly killing some of them. Yeah, really pacifist Gandalf.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All the threads like these popping up recently makes me feel like I'm the only one who still plays games where the monsters are evil and the good guys (PCs) kill them heroically.
The first people I played the game with seemed to enjoy "heroically" killing noncombatants and children for having the bad luck of being born into the wrong race. Can't say I really enjoyed that game though.
Some folks want good and evil to actually mean something other than labels of who is and who isn't tagged as safe to murder. And some folks detest the idea of entire mortal races being Always Alignment X. Different strokes.
And there is a vast gulf between "don't want to kill helpless beings who can easily be overcome by means other than death" and "impotent in the face of evil". False dichotomies are bad.
|
|
All the threads like these popping up recently makes me feel like I'm the only one who still plays games where the monsters are evil and the good guys (PCs) kill them heroically.
Then I remember that Paizo still puts out a line of excellent APs and modules with no shortage of evil monsters to slay and stuff to take, and I feel better.
Anyway.
What, exactly, is so evil about killing Drow?
Is it killing evil monsters using trickery or deceit?
Were the Rouges in your campaigns dissapointed to learn that using bluff or Sneak Attacking are evil?Is it killing helpless Monsters? Is Coup-de-Gras also evil?
Is poison evil? I thought we had evolved beyond that. Are swords evil? They kill things too, quite painfully.
Is killing evil monsters painfully evil? Swords hurt, Bleed hurts, Fireballs hurt. Are they evil? Subdual damage hurts, but doesn't kill. Is it evil?
Is killing evil monsters evil, period? Are all the Paladins in your campaigns non-violent pacifists?
Are all the Good-alligned characters pacifists? Do most adventures consist of non-violently arresting the evil monsters and taking them to trial?
Is allowing evil monsters to hurt and kill innocents because of your own inaction evil?
When you throw alignments into the mix it becomes less black and white.
Another way to look at it is via statistics. Lets assume for argument sake that on average out of 100 members of a given "evil" race, 94 grow up to do unspeakable evil, 5 come out neutral, and 1 ends up good.
Now, you find a group of 20, and you kill them all.
There is a 29% chance that all 20 of those creatures would have done unspeakable evil if allowed to live.
There is a 53% chance you killed a neutral bystander.
Finally, there is a 18% chance you killed someone who was going to grow up to be a good person.Further, all of the above assumes that you character has no influence over those 20 specific members of the race. What if you character's actions change the distribution for that group to 80% evil/10%...
Well, now you are just making up numbers? What if drow are like bugbears, where they draw pleasure from the suffering of others? What if their very biology makes them Evil? What if only 1 in 1 million drow is good? I'd expect that from an "usually evil" race.
In this case, the chances are 99.98% that all of the drow in the quarry are evil. If you choose to let them live, they will go and hurt others.
If you wanted to be extra thorough, assuming you could not take them with you, is to use magic to enforce an oath of honor from them. Depending on your level, this could be an oath under Zone of Truth, or a mark of justice, or an atonement or something like that.
In these situations, its important to know if you live in a world where other races are just humans in make-up, or if they are truly alien minds.
|
|
Another way to look at it is via statistics. Lets assume for argument sake that on average out of 100 members of a given "evil" race, 94 grow up to do unspeakable evil, 5 come out neutral, and 1 ends up good.
Now, you find a group of 20, and you kill them all.
There is a 29% chance that all 20 of those creatures would have done unspeakable evil if allowed to live.
There is a 53% chance you killed a neutral bystander.
Finally, there is a 18% chance you killed someone who was going to grow up to be a good person.Further, all of the above assumes that you character has no influence over those 20 specific members of the race. What if you character's actions change the distribution for that group to 80% evil/10%...
Well, now you are just making up numbers? What if drow are like bugbears, where they draw pleasure from the suffering of others? What if their very biology makes them Evil? What if only 1 in 1 million drow is good? I'd expect that from an "usually evil" race.
In this case, the chances are 99.98% that all of the drow in the quarry are evil. If you choose to let them live, they will go and hurt others.
If you wanted to be extra thorough, assuming you could not take them with you, is to use magic to enforce an oath of honor from them. Depending on your level, this could be an oath under Zone of Truth, or a mark of justice, or an atonement or something like that.
In these situations, its important to know if you live in a world where other races are just humans in make-up, or if they are truly alien minds.
Then don't play Neutral Good, it's just that simple.
The PC's behavior was not that of Neutral Good and if you are going to use alignment in your game then it's important to make sure the PC's stick to it.
I found that part of the film pathetic and wishy washy. As if he is putting Frodo on the path of non-violence. Gandalf would also later beat and chop up orcs in battle, clearly killing some of them. Yeah, really pacifist Gandalf."He hates and loves the Ring, as he hates and loves himself. He will never be rid of his need for it."
"It's pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had a chance!"
"Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. And some that died deserve life. Can you give it to them Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many."
I don't really remember the scene from the movie--but it makes sense in the context of the book.
It is a total misreading to construe Gandalf as a pacifist, as you rightly point out. He spends half the books either fighting, or trying to persuade other people to fight. That precludes neither pity nor a morality that deplores slaughter.
There is a difference between fighting and slaughter. Slaughtering sentients is evil. Even in war. People who slaughter captives are condemned the world over for war crimes, and the traditional punishment is execution. It was fairly common for soldiers to disarm their captives and release them, even though it was almost certain they would return to fight.
|
|
Then don't play Neutral Good, it's just that simple.
The PC's behavior was not that of Neutral Good and if you are going to use alignment in your game then it's important to make sure the PC's stick to it.
Me, I reject this statement. Alignment is a part of a character that grows along with his experience and decisions.
A player is not bound by alignment, but should pay attention to it.
|
|
Then don't play Neutral Good, it's just that simple.
The PC's behavior was not that of Neutral Good and if you are going to use alignment in your game then it's important to make sure the PC's stick to it.
Me, I reject this statement. Alignment is a part of a character that grows along with his experience and decisions.
A player is not bound by alignment, but should pay attention to it.
You choose a specific alignment for a reason, just like you choose a race or class.
When you choose that specific alignment then your goal is to act out that character within that specific framework of that particular alignment. Unfortunately, the alignment that let's you do things out of the ordinary and not suffer is Chaotic Neutral and if you want to walk slaves into a gas chamber and not go against your alignment then play CN.
There is sidestepping your alignment for a brief moment and then there is going against it completely. He didn't accidentally walk those slaves into that chamber, he knew damn well what he was doing which is a complete 180 from being Neutral Good.
If you don't want the responsibility of alignment then ask the DM to remove it so you can do what ever you want without repercussions.
|
|
As I understand the situation, that was unusually vicious without justification or necessity. I'd actually be willing to hear arguments that killing them outright was, at least Neutral or maybe Good and not Evil. We could have one hell of a good conversation about that.
However, what definitely (for me) puts it into Evil territory is the malice and means. You described a series of near-helpless targets. If the character really thought this action was necessary for the greater Good and that no possible Good or Neutral outcome could result from freeing them... then they should have at least been direct and honest about it, and done it themselves.
Tricking near-helpless targets into following you to 'freedom' only to discover 'freedom' is a code word for lung-searing-torturous death when it wasn't even remotely necessary is pretty dark stuff. It might be one thing if there was no other option available, and a lot of Good characters will "do what must be done" while remaining Good, but... this does not appear to have been one such extreme scenario.
Now, I have to bear in mind the Drow actively rejected redemption and the party have seen zero capacity for kindness in them. For all the party knows, these 'Dark Elves' may be inherently Evil in much the same way Demons/Devils/Daemons are; they're certainly putting their worst possible foot forward. The party genuinely tried to bring them around to at least Neutral. As written, I'm going to assume the rescued slaves were in the batch of people who heard the offer from the Sarenite cleric and rejected it. Simply letting them go on their way could be seen as foolishly endangering innocents.
Therefore I figure it's something like this:
- The actual killing is hard to directly quantify. You can make great cases for it being Good, Neutral, Neutral without causing Alignment slip ("the Good and Evil of it cancel out in an odd way"), or Evil. I'd really have to hear more about the PC's motives on that part.
- Doing it through a needlessly cruel method however is Evil. There was no pressing circumstance forcing the Good character to fight dirty in order to bring about a Good (or Less Evil if there was no Good) outcome; these were half-dead helpless targets. The character should at least have the dignity to face them, tell them what's going to happen (and why), and carry it out both quickly and personally. Getting their hopes up and then leading them into a deeply slow, painful death is... not a Good action. It is at absolute very best (with incredible mitigating circumstances) a Neutral act, and 99% of the time I'll outright call it Evil.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assume the adventurers have never encountered drow or driders before and know next to nothing about them.
This is from the OP and so I want everyone to pay special attention to it. Now unless you are going to sit there and metagame, you know nothing about the race of drow. Humans can be evil, so can dwarves, elves, gnomes and every other race out there but you also know that there are good ones. If you know nothing about drow then what makes you think they are all inherently evil?
Basically what we have here is classic metagaming.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a good point, shallowsoul, and it's why I'd be willing to hear significant wriggle room on the actual killing itself being any alignment. Depending on the evidence the PCs saw in their limited time there, it's possible they might reasonably conclude Drow are inherently evil in the same way Evil Outsiders and Undead generally are. Or maybe they don't have enough data to reach that conclusion and it becomes Evil on its face (one does not kill something they can't reasonably conclusively identify, after all).
Quick Edit: That said it's ultimately academic in this case, because the method with which the killing was carried out is just straight-up needlessly brutal and cruel. It's a tactic I would expect out of characters who genuinely enjoy seeing others suffer, who would get a dark laugh out of that moment when the betrayal and pain set in. It falls squarely into Evil territory due to that on its own, in my opinion.
I agree with Celestial Pegasus. I was talking about killing them in generall, not the specific method the thurge chose. And I agree that if the thurge did not have a reasonable reason to belive that drow were Evil on the level of demons, that killing them was not warranted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like to take the "War Crime" approach. Would it be considered a war crime? If so, evil. Not necessarily alignment-alteringly evil, but an evil act.
Killing helpless non-combatants falls under that umbrella for me.
(I realise War Crime is a legal term, but I believe it's one that's very firmly based in morality.)
Assume the adventurers have never encountered drow or driders before and know next to nothing about them.
This is from the OP and so I want everyone to pay special attention to it. Now unless you are going to sit there and metagame, you know nothing about the race of drow. Humans can be evil, so can dwarves, elves, gnomes and every other race out there but you also know that there are good ones. If you know nothing about drow then what makes you think they are all inherently evil?
Basically what we have here is classic metagaming.
The drow quickly establish themselves to be cruel, sadistic jerkwads who don't even try to conceal the fact they view the party as expendable pawns.
The adventurers, at this point, have seen and learned the absolute worst about the drow and what they're capable of when left to their own devices.
The one party member capable of speaking with these drow (they didn't speak Common) kills the slaves in a particularly horrific manner... He reasons he must take preemptive measures to see the drow never regain their power or get their hands on the doomsday weapon and threaten his people.
This is from the OP and so I want everyone to pay special attention to it.
The characters interacted with these drow and discovered that they're pretty darn evil. It's evident that, if left alone, these drow would likely be as bad as the driders and would be a threat to free peoples everywhere. One pragmatic character decides he must take preemptive measures against the drow, and dispatches them in the most efficicient method he can devise in order to expose himself and others to the least threat of danger.
Basically what we have here is classic rollplaying.
The character in question was Neutral Good.
A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. he is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order.
My gut feeling is the character violated his alignment, at least the Good part. Good or evil, the Drow were not threatening anyone and were weak and helpless. Murdering the helpless drow is not a good act.
If I were handling the character, I would change his alignment involuntarily to Neutral.A neutral character dos what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs chaos.
Killing all those Drow seemed like a good idea. Yes, it was an evil act, but so what. How many would they have killed. A whole pen full of potential Adolf Hitler's are dead. He should get a reward, as a neutral character. It removed them from temptation of having a doomsday weapon.
This reminds me of the discussion about anti-Paladins. Most thought that as long as he served the greater evil, he could refrain from killing kittens and goblin babies. He could do good a long as the greatest evil is served. IHowever, killing helpless individuals, even a cute and cuddly six year old Adolf Hitler, just feels wrong. Within the game, when it feels wrong, all that is left is to look at the rules.
|
If you've established in your game that creature type X is absolutely, irredeemably evil, then (IMO) it's perfectly fine to kill them for being creature type X.
If you've established in your game that while some creatures have a tendency towards evil this is not absolute, a Good character needs to consider the situation and show mercy towards these creatures where possible.
I see this as a bit of a spectrum from "no killing ever" to "no mercy ever" and I don't care what end of the spectrum you're on as long as everyone at the table is more or less playing at the same end (a little variation is fine if people are OK with IC moral discussions).
From the OP and how it was handled, it sounds like your group was playing a bit more to the merciful end of the spectrum than the Theurge was acting in those circumstances, and he faced appropriate in-world penalties for his actions.
I found that part of the film pathetic and wishy washy. As if he is putting Frodo on the path of non-violence. Gandalf would also later beat and chop up orcs in battle, clearly killing some of them. Yeah, really pacifist Gandalf.
Key word there is "in battle." Gandalf killed orcs who were actively waving weapons and talking about having man-flesh to eat. He was advising Frodo not to kill someone who wasn't an immediate threat and wasn't capable of defending themselves.
Unfortunately, the alignment that let's you do things out of the ordinary and not suffer is Chaotic Neutral and if you want to walk slaves into a gas chamber and not go against your alignment then play CN.
I could see a lot of LN people doing the same thing under the wrong leader. After all, if they're just following orders...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The drow quickly establish themselves to be cruel, sadistic jerkwads who don't even try to conceal the fact they view the party as expendable pawns.The adventurers, at this point, have seen and learned the absolute worst about the drow and what they're capable of when left to their own devices.
The one party member capable of speaking with these drow (they didn't speak Common) kills the slaves in a particularly horrific manner... He reasons he must take preemptive measures to see the drow never regain their power or get their hands on the doomsday weapon and threaten his people.
This is from the OP and so I want everyone to pay special attention to it.
Been there, done that.
The characters interacted with these drow and discovered that they're pretty darn evil. It's evident that, if left alone, these drow would likely be as bad as the driders and would be a threat to free peoples everywhere. One pragmatic character decides he must take preemptive measures against the drow, and dispatches them in the most efficicient method he can devise in order to expose himself and others to the least threat of danger.Basically what we have here is classic rollplaying.
This is not about the alignment of the Drow. It's about the alignment of the NG guy who brutally murdered them. After his group freed them. Not to nitpick, although I guess I am, that should be "roleplaying" unless you're chucking dice and randomizing your actions :) Which could certainly explain this guys behavior...
To put it simply, just because they are evil sadistic jerks does not mean you get to act that way, unless, of course, you want to play an evil sadistic jerk. In which case, have at it. If you're planning on being / staying NG, well, not so much. Your alignment, in a world of moral absolutes, is not that situational. The killing as described is evil. This doesn't mean a "good" character might not do it (see my mention of "necessary evil" above or just think "hypocrite") it simply means it is out of character and could result in alignment issues, especially if this type of thing becomes a habit.
What is so difficult about this? A presumably normally good guy committed an evil act in a highly stressful situation. It happens. All the time. He gets to live with it, and hopefully copes with it. He can always tell himself "well, they were rotten evil jerks and deserved it". As long as he doesn't look in a mirror. Because it sounds like something a Drow would do. Doesn't it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The drow quickly establish themselves to be cruel, sadistic jerkwads who don't even try to conceal the fact they view the party as expendable pawns.
The adventurers, at this point, have seen and learned the absolute worst about the drow and what they're capable of when left to their own devices.
The one party member capable of speaking with these drow (they didn't speak Common) kills the slaves in a particularly horrific manner... He reasons he must take preemptive measures to see the drow never regain their power or get their hands on the doomsday weapon and threaten his people.
This is from the OP and so I want everyone to pay special attention to it.
The characters interacted with these drow and discovered that they're pretty darn evil. It's evident that, if left alone, these drow would likely be as bad as the driders and would be a threat to free peoples everywhere. One pragmatic character decides he must take preemptive measures against the drow, and dispatches them in the most efficicient method he can devise in order to expose himself and others to the least threat of danger.
Basically what we have here is classic rollplaying.
No they interacted with the Drow who the allied with( who they let go by the way). Those drow where evil. I don't know the size of group of drow...but lets say it was 10. So they could interacted with them.
Than the group came acroos a beaten, broken group of drow of about 20. Who to say they are as evil or evil at all compared to theirr Allies. If the group never meant a dwarf before and thet ran into a group of evil dwarves would they be justified on treating all dwarves as if evil and kill on sight?
The only desciption of the drow that made that player leery was they were distrusting...well yes people who have been beaten down constantly tend to be distrusting.
Also lets examine something here...not all Drow (or really any culture that has cities) can be fighters, priestess, etc. You will need tailors, leatherworkers, farmers, etc. How would these people ever be a threat?
All the threads like these popping up recently makes me feel like I'm the only one who still plays games where the monsters are evil and the good guys (PCs) kill them heroically.
Then I remember that Paizo still puts out a line of excellent APs and modules with no shortage of evil monsters to slay and stuff to take, and I feel better.
You are probably not alone...but not everyone will play the game the same way. We were asked by the OP how we would handle the situration. I am not judging how you play the game...I simply stating how I play the the game. So I'll ask why are you soo affronted people would play differently than you?
Anyway.
What, exactly, is so evil about killing Drow?
First this was not killing...it was straight up murder. Second in my opinion Good does not beat evil by using the same tactics( In this case killing helpless foes). I mean there was not even a attempt to see if all those drow were evil( in the alignment rules in the Bestiary I believe there would be a chance of that).
Is it killing evil monsters using trickery or deceit?
Were the Rouges in your campaigns dissapointed to learn that using bluff or Sneak Attacking are evil?
Nope never said that. Other might have but I agree with you. But the fact there were helpless and the fact that characters don't know all drow were evil.
Is it killing helpless Monsters? Is Coup-de-Gras also evil?
Depends of the creature...I am fine with some races being always evil...but for a race that is not...I do have problems murdering helpless creatures. I am also fine that it is possible that some inviduals can't be redeemed or stopped short of death. But that require the character to know that is the case.
Is poison evil? I thought we had evolved beyond that. Are swords evil? They kill things too, quite painfully.
Um...never ever considered poion use evil...no one here has said so I believe.
Is killing evil monsters painfully evil? Swords hurt, Bleed hurts, Fireballs hurt. Are they evil? Subdual damage hurts, but doesn't kill. Is it evil?
It not the way you attack it is the condition of your foe that matters here.
Is killing evil monsters evil, period? Are all the Paladins in your campaigns non-violent pacifists?
Nope. Killing monsters is not evil when done for direct threats to innocence for example.
Are all the Good-alligned characters pacifists? Do most adventures consist of non-violently arresting the evil monsters and taking them to trial?
Nope...but it sometime cause interesting RP on what to do with the survivals.
Listen I understand you play ther game differently than I do...that is cool. But I'll ask again why are you offended...or mocking because people play diffrently than you?
Is allowing evil monsters to hurt and kill innocents because of your own inaction evil?
As far as mercy goes, what happens when you show mercy to the Drow slaves and they, predictably, turn on you and take the party hostage?
Must good characters give every evil foe the opportunity to take advantage of their naivety? Isn't that the kind of behavior that earns Paladins the title of "Lawful Stupid"?
I'm not saying that you have to kill all Drow slaves or all Goblin babies, all I'm saying is exactly what the GameMastery Guide says: that good characters might decide that the best way to serve good is to dispatch evil creatures before they have the chance to harm innocents. That such behavior is entirely within their alignment.
Mercy is great, but it's not mandatory.
As far as mercy goes, what happens when you show mercy to the Drow slaves and they, predictably, turn on you and take the party hostage?
Must good characters give every evil foe the opportunity to take advantage of their naivety? Isn't that the kind of behavior that earns Paladins the title of "Lawful Stupid"?
Mercy is great, but it's not mandatory.
What if the group of Drow do realize that there's benefits to being Good? You know, I think someone who has grown up to never expect anything nice would be confused when someone does offer mercy and dwell on it. Of course, the less redeemable ones just take advantage of the kindness, but these are individual humanoids, not fiends with the Evil sub-type. From what I have seen, Lawful Stupid becomes the moniker for a Paladin that smites first and asks questions later. Bonus points if he/she demands the whole party to behave with "honor" and has an irrational hate for any "sneaky" character like a Rogue, Bard or even an Enchanter Wizard.
I'm a cynical bastard IRL, but I still give chances for PCs to redeem evil characters and NOT have them be backstabbed for their troubles every f***ing time!!
I think the only real answer is PANTY RAID AT THE NEAREST SORORITY, as long as you have a Jim Belushi like NPC
As far as mercy goes, what happens when you show mercy to the Drow slaves and they, predictably, turn on you and take the party hostage?
Must good characters give every evil foe the opportunity to take advantage of their naivety? Isn't that the kind of behavior that earns Paladins the title of "Lawful Stupid"?
Mercy is great, but it's not mandatory.
What if the group of Drow do realize that there's benefits to being Good? You know, I think someone who has grown up to never expect anything nice would be confused when someone does offer mercy and dwell on it. Of course, the less redeemable ones just take advantage of the kindness, but these are individual humanoids, not fiends with the Evil sub-type. From what I have seen, Lawful Stupid becomes the moniker for a Paladin that smites first and asks questions later. Bonus points if he/she demands the whole party to behave with "honor" and has an irrational hate for any "sneaky" character like a Rogue, Bard or even an Enchanter Wizard.
I'm a cynical bastard IRL, but I still give chances for PCs to redeem evil characters and NOT have them be backstabbed for their troubles every f***ing time!!
Once is not every f***ing time. If the PCs want to redeem evil things and you let them because it's fun for them, that's great! Fun is always great.
The thing is, "because the GM will let us" is a pretty metagame reason to try to redeem every evil thing the PCs happen across, or even all the weakened and pitiful evil things the PCs come across, and it certainly isn't a reason for involuntary alignment change or other forms of punishment for PCs who don't want to redeem every monster they come across, or even just this particular monster.
I really don't have any problems with redemption or mercy, the thing I'm taking issue with is all the recommendations on how to punish PCs who don't want to show mercy to evil monsters.
Problem is, you backstab the players once and they will probably say "never again", killing every villain that begs for mercy because they don't want it happening a second time. That is the part where they're gonna eventually stop being Good and shift to Neutral instead. Also, I did not say that I will let the villain be redeemed every time. I merely pointed out that it should be an option in certain situations.
As for the thing you are taking issue with, Good is beheld to a higher standard. What happened here was a slaughter, not a proper fight.
As far as mercy goes, what happens when you show mercy to the Drow slaves and they, predictably, turn on you and take the party hostage?Must good characters give every evil foe the opportunity to take advantage of their naivety? Isn't that the kind of behavior that earns Paladins the title of "Lawful Stupid"?
I'm not saying that you have to kill all Drow slaves or all Goblin babies, all I'm saying is exactly what the GameMastery Guide says: that good characters might decide that the best way to serve good is to dispatch evil creatures before they have the chance to harm innocents. That such behavior is entirely within their alignment.
Mercy is great, but it's not mandatory.
Personally I say mercy is an option. Killing them is too. As long as we don't call killing them "good". It's something a good character *might* do. But it's not a "good" action. It's one of those choice things. People, good and otherwise, have to make these calls. It may reflect or violate their alignment. Life does that and, over time, alignment may, or may not, change as a result.
@Quantum Steve
Please refrain from going into extremes in your examples next time. You went this close to putting up a strawman argument when you suddenly say "the players are metagaming with DM approval" and complaining about how a DM would punish a player when they don't try to redeem certain beings. I can understand even a Paladin of Shelyn or Sarenrae being reluctant about giving a Fiend the chance to redeem themselves, but a sentient being like a Drow that doesn't have the Evil sub-type still has a chance and these slaves were probably less dastardly than the high-rank male wizards and female clerics.
Slim chance for a change of heart for Drow in general (considering their culture), but not as slim as that of a being that is more or less "pure evil".
As far as mercy goes, what happens when you show mercy to the Drow slaves and they, predictably, turn on you and take the party hostage?
Must good characters give every evil foe the opportunity to take advantage of their naivety? Isn't that the kind of behavior that earns Paladins the title of "Lawful Stupid"?
Mercy is great, but it's not mandatory.
What if the group of Drow do realize that there's benefits to being Good? You know, I think someone who has grown up to never expect anything nice would be confused when someone does offer mercy and dwell on it. Of course, the less redeemable ones just take advantage of the kindness, but these are individual humanoids, not fiends with the Evil sub-type. From what I have seen, Lawful Stupid becomes the moniker for a Paladin that smites first and asks questions later. Bonus points if he/she demands the whole party to behave with "honor" and has an irrational hate for any "sneaky" character like a Rogue, Bard or even an Enchanter Wizard.
I'm a cynical bastard IRL, but I still give chances for PCs to redeem evil characters and NOT have them be backstabbed for their troubles every f***ing time!!
Once is not every f***ing time. If the PCs want to redeem evil things and you let them because it's fun for them, that's great! Fun is always great.
The thing is, "because the GM will let us" is a pretty metagame reason to try to redeem every evil thing the PCs happen across, or even all the weakened and pitiful evil things the PCs come across, and it certainly isn't a reason for involuntary alignment change or other forms of punishment for PCs who don't want to redeem every monster they come across, or even just this particular monster.
I really don't have any problems with redemption or mercy, the thing I'm taking issue with is all the recommendations on how to punish PCs who don't want to show mercy to evil monsters.
My opinions on the subject :
1) killing them is harsh but not necessarily evil given there might be a direct threat if they walk free.
2) killing because it is evil is not a really good reason, it might be evil but does it mean they will kill innocents, not all criminals deserve death even if they lie, cheat and steal. Evil does not mean they kill everyone they meet, and if they do they are more likely to kill other drow, or not so innocent creatures.
3) There is a possibility good will come from letting them go, they might be jerks, they might be sadistic, they might be evil but that does not define them. Some of them might feel indebted to return the favor in some way even if they are disgusted by your ideals.
4) Killing without remorse, out of convenience or in ways that are more painful or cruel than needed is evil. Good characters are expected to respect life, even if preserving all life is not an option there should be a measure of respect or regret in dealing with such circumstances.
5) I am more inclined to judge actions a bit more harshly than some on these boards, if you want evil creatures in your campaign and still have some degree of realism in their psychology then you should not waive actions like these away as a 'chaotic' or 'neutral' act, only insane people kill without reasons and I do not wish to play the game where every evil aligned creature is insane.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This might be cynicism talking, but I've got a feeling, that if you were to make a rule that said:
"If you resolve an encounter, without brainlessly murdering everything and everyone, until there is only PCs left on the initiative track, you get x1.5 experience for the encounter"
Everyone who keeps rattling on about how "killing evil is good", and how they hate that "the game is no longer about being a hero, but a humanitarian" and all those other nonsense arguments, would just shut up and stop their "heroic" killing of evildoers.
Either that or they'd start arguing how roleplaying unbalances the game.
|
|
Assume the adventurers have never encountered drow or driders before and know next to nothing about them.
This is from the OP and so I want everyone to pay special attention to it. Now unless you are going to sit there and metagame, you know nothing about the race of drow. Humans can be evil, so can dwarves, elves, gnomes and every other race out there but you also know that there are good ones. If you know nothing about drow then what makes you think they are all inherently evil?
Basically what we have here is classic metagaming.
The humans quickly establish themselves to be cruel, sadistic jerkwads who don't even try to conceal the fact they view the party as expendable pawns.
The adventurers, at this point, have seen and learned the absolute worst about the humans and what they're capable of when left to their own devices.
The one party member capable of speaking with these humans (they didn't speak Common) kills the slaves in a particularly horrific manner... He reasons he must take preemptive measures to see the humans never regain their power or get their hands on the doomsday weapon and threaten his people.
This is from the OP and so I want everyone to pay special attention to it.
The characters interacted with these humans and discovered that they're pretty darn evil. It's evident that, if left alone, these humans would likely be as bad as the driders and would be a threat to free peoples everywhere. One pragmatic character decides he must take preemptive measures against the humans, and dispatches them in the most efficicient method he can devise in order to expose himself and others to the least threat of danger.
Basically what we have here is classic rollplaying.
See what I did there? I subbed human for drow. Now if your first impression is meeting up with evil aligned versions of a particular race are you then going to go on a witch hunt and murder every one you come across? If your answer is yes then you sure as hell are not Neutral Good.
Once again, this is still an example of metagaming no matter how you want to spin it.
But Drow are always evil and are only there to give the PCs EXP!! They live in the dark and like spiders, which is totally Evil!!
Same with Orcs!! They are smelly and ugly!! They all deserve to die and you are Good by killing them, regardless of circumstance!! /sarcasm
So, when are we having our scheduled mass genocide of Tieflings?
Even the Good ones have some Evil in them. And we all know what that means...
|
|
My own two cents.
Sparing them is not being 'naive.' You can spare them, knowing its the right thing, /while/ expecting them to turn on you.
As is, our murderous theurge friend is playing directly into the drow mindset. He's /justifying/ them.
Also, this is something that comes up again, and again, and again, and again in forum alignment debates.
Firstly,
Killing.
Is.
Not.
The.
Same.
As.
Murder.
And Secondly,
You.
Are.
Not.
Responsible.
For.
The.
Actions.
Of.
Others.
If those drow go out, cobble together some weapons and attack a village. Its not because 'you let them live,' its because they cobbled together some weapons and attacked a village. By this logic if I walk past a guy in the mall and don't immediately strangle him to death I'm responsible for him killing his wife thirty years later. The drow are moral actors, they make their own moral decisions and they reap their own moral consequences.
Also the 'pragmatist' argument of 'we're being prevenative' always makes me think of Lewis, who brought up the idea that well...you might do all of these things 'for the future generations' and then the world might end a second later with no 'future generations' or 'history' to justify your horrible, horrible act. So who did you just kill all those people for? Essentially yourself. And you're a murderer.
The heroic response is to take the slaves, watch them, escort them somewhere safe. If they cause trouble stop them.
As for the 'well they're drow' argument. Lets just say speaking as the guy who was the subject of the 'Is a god of genocide necessarilly evil' thread, people who enact Final Solutions on enemies no matter how evil those enemies may be are probably not tangoing on the tips of pins with angels.
Then don't play Neutral Good, it's just that simple.
The PC's behavior was not that of Neutral Good and if you are going to use alignment in your game then it's important to make sure the PC's stick to it.
Me, I reject this statement. Alignment is a part of a character that grows along with his experience and decisions.
A player is not bound by alignment, but should pay attention to it.
You choose a specific alignment for a reason, just like you choose a race or class.
When you choose that specific alignment then your goal is to act out that character within that specific framework of that particular alignment. Unfortunately, the alignment that let's you do things out of the ordinary and not suffer is Chaotic Neutral and if you want to walk slaves into a gas chamber and not go against your alignment then play CN.
There is sidestepping your alignment for a brief moment and then there is going against it completely. He didn't accidentally walk those slaves into that chamber, he knew damn well what he was doing which is a complete 180 from being Neutral Good.
If you don't want the responsibility of alignment then ask the DM to remove it so you can do what ever you want without repercussions.
For alignment there are two ways of looking at it in games that I've played in and run that allow characters some leg room, and prevent players from having to always act the same way or face dm scorn if they dare to contradict what the alignment definitions say.
Minor and major
Say you are anything but neutral, okay, you have two axis. The good-evil and the chaos-law. That is great, good progress. Now consider which one is more weightier. If LG are you more L or G? Which one do you lean more strongly towards? For neutral evil are you heavy neutral and light evil, or heavy on the selfish side of the evil. For other alignments, are you more chaotic than good, are you more evil than lawful and so on. An example is a monk that is LG, but is more G than L. So he sometimes veers closer to neutral good, but still respects laws, traditions, honour and so on. Done, next point.
Alignment light (please not too much, I am slightly allergic)
The next is to make a character with an alignment that is actually not even close to the most important part of the character. Privilege their allegiances, parts of their personality, their wants, their drives far over the alignment. It places them half outside the alignment shabang. Yeah, he might be a LG fighter, but given he is from Braavos and considering the long running wars of the Free cities against anti-Valyrian Braavos, this fighter will always side with Bravos and back his people, no matter what. Good, evil, law, chaos matter a whole lot less than making sure he isn't the only Braavosi left standing.
Alignment doesn't have to be the end of depth for a character, or shut down other aspects being really far more important.
My own two cents.
Sparing them is not being 'naive.' You can spare them, knowing its the right thing, /while/ expecting them to turn on you.
As is, our murderous theurge friend is playing directly into the drow mindset. He's /justifying/ them.
Also, this is something that comes up again, and again, and again, and again in forum alignment debates.
Firstly,
Killing.
Is.
Not.
The.
Same.
As.
Murder.And Secondly,
You.
Are.
Not.
Responsible.
For.
The.
Actions.
Of.
Others.If those drow go out, cobble together some weapons and attack a village. Its not because 'you let them live,' its because they cobbled together some weapons and attacked a village. By this logic if I walk past a guy in the mall and don't immediately strangle him to death I'm responsible for him killing his wife thirty years later. The drow are moral actors, they make their own moral decisions and they reap their own moral consequences.
Also the 'pragmatist' argument of 'we're being prevenative' always makes me think of Lewis, who brought up the idea that well...you might do all of these things 'for the future generations' and then the world might end a second later with no 'future generations' or 'history' to justify your horrible, horrible act. So who did you just kill all those people for? Essentially yourself. And you're a murderer.
The heroic response is to take the slaves, watch them, escort them somewhere safe. If they cause trouble stop them.
As for the 'well they're drow' argument. Lets just say speaking as the guy who was the subject of the 'Is a god of genocide necessarilly evil' thread, people who enact Final Solutions on enemies no matter how evil those enemies may be are probably not tangoing on the tips of pins with angels.
Yeah, the party could free these slaves, treat them well and with smiles on their faces say "gee you poor guys are all right, we are glad to help. Oh and there was one more thing. If you raid the people of this region under our protection, if you steal and give in to the worst side of your nature, we will hunt you, we will find you and we will kill you. You are free, so don't f*** it up."
On final solutions, if a type of monster or humanoid always, always grows in number after being beaten back, if they always comes back to attack the good or neutral cities and peoples again and again no matter how many have been killed in the past, no matter treaties and agreements, trade and exchange, after all that, if nothing works, then it is time to exterminate every last one of them. Stomp their gods and temples, burn their sacred texts, raze everything they have ever built.
You can't just let the forces of evil walk all over you after all.
So I say we start with those dishonest dodgy humans, lol.
Then again, what the nazis did was not because we were out there raiding their towns or anything.
The next is to make a character with an alignment that is actually not even close to the most important part of the character. Privilege their allegiances, parts of their personality, their wants, their drives far over the alignment. It places them half outside the alignment shabang. Yeah, he might be a LG fighter, but given he is from Braavos and considering the long running wars of the Free cities against anti-Valyrian Braavos, this fighter will always side with Bravos and back his people, no matter what. Good, evil, law, chaos matter a whole lot less than making sure he isn't the only Braavosi left standing.
Alignment doesn't have to be the end of depth for a character, or shut down other aspects being really far more important.
I don't think anyone is saying that alignment has to stop you roleplaying. On the contrary. We are not as much discussing the alignment of characters as we are discussing the alignment of their actions. After all, the OP asked if what the player did was an evil-ACT, not if his character was evil.
The alignment of your character describes your characters motivations, drives, ethics and so on. For most characters the alignment of their actions does not hold any in-game effect, aside from other people disagreeing with their decisions, and the GM flavouring it so that multiple acts of any given alignment, might change your outlook over a span of time. Only Paladins (as far as I know) need to be exceedingly aware of the alignment of their actions, instead of just the alignment of their characters.
And so I make the counterpoint. If you are intent on running this braavosi the way you've written him, which I can only applaud, why do you care if he commits an evil act, or change alignment?
If you stay loyal to your concept, shouldn't it be unimportant whether the alignment bar on your character sheet says "LG" or "CE"?. Stick with your concept, and accept the alignment-rules being run the way they're written.
Alright, I'm signing in on this:
1) The OP stated the player in question has a past history of 'poor impulse control'.
2) The OP stated the initial idea was the result of an OOC joke stated by someone else at the table, which the player immediately took & ran with.
The problem is the player consistently fails to accurately play a High Wisdom Character, which is what you expect of a Cleric.
I'm going to avoid adding fuel to the Alignment thread fire, cause that's burning plenty high without my help thanks.
OP: My recommendation is that you encourage the player to either stop acting so impulsively with the character, or consider retiring that character & roll up one where poor impulse control is less of an impediment to playing the character appropriately.