|
A few things I want to point out.
1: If the player's excuse is to prevent them from doing future harm then he needs to go around killing pretty much everything around him, including his fellow PC's. Everyone has the capability to commit some kind of heinous act mass genocide would be the best solution.
2: This is a Mystic Theurge, which means that his two highest stats are most likely Int and Wis. This means that he is both intelligent and has common sense. If you know nothing about drow then you can look at the current situation and make an educated guess. The slaves could have been members of the race who revolted and didn't want to commit acts of evil so they were made into slaves in order to work until they died. Being educated and wise, he would have easily seen this.
3: He could have simply walked away but the fact that he went out of his way to free them, lie to them, and then march them straight to their deaths is an evil act. I could maybe see a NG Ranger who's FE is drow do this kind of thing or maybe even a surface elf who's family was killed by a drow raid, who would still fight an inner battle over this because of the method used but not some educated person with no information on the race who is of an alignment who actually helps people.
The player screwed up and I believe there should be consequences.
What is the party made of, such as race, class, and alignment?
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.
No one went on a witch hunt and you probably shouldn't act any differently just because you know they were human OOC. That would then be metagaming. I think the point was that so far the players has only met ridiculous evil Drow so they looked like an race of pure evil. Which... Isn't far from the truth depending on your setting.
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?I suppose now would be a bad time to start a thread about the hobgoblin children situation we're being faced with now.
I would liketo hear more about the situration...perhaps a PM.
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?
Than there is no mercy. Just because you show mercy does not mean you can't takeprecations.
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"?
Again just because you DO show mercy....does not mean you have to it dumbly.
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.
That statement has nothing to do with helpless or already surrendered foes.
Mercy is great, but it's not mandatory.
Agreed...in your games....not so true about others.
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.
And agrred if the PCs do show mercy it can backfire...but it should not always backfire.
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.
As the statements "The GM always backstabs when we show mercy so you don't" or "Drow are monsters...or always evil". Rather you are mercieful or not as no bearing on if it is metagame reason.
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.
We were asked 'What we would do'...personaly I never like the whole universal evil concept of races.....so in my game that group of 20 Drow there would have maybe been 1 good drow and defintly 4 to 6 neutral drow. So in my game that player would have just killed non evil creatures due to what is pretty much bigitry thinking. Thus my 'punishment' would probably be harsher...though I perfer to think of as consequences.
Again the OP ask us what we would do as a GM. Not what he should do. It is a interesting topic to talk about.
I think the way which he handled this was evil, especially coming from a NG character. If he thought slaying them was the best option, he should have been straight forward about it and not used lies, deceit, trickery.
Sometimes we do what we do because we have the right reasons, but how we end up doing it is often wrong, and so our entire conclusion is somehow discredited. I would definitely take this action into alignment consideration, but his intention was for the greater good, which is an important consideration as well.
His actions may have been for what he saw as the "greater good", but that lets him off no hooks whatsoever and gets him no consideration whatsoever. One of the hallmarks of certain types of Evil (often but not always LE) is a willingness to commit atrocities for "the greater good". In fact, that's the justification many terrorists use. GMs, being in control of the game world, have the power to create all sorts of situations in which an evil action could conceivably serve the "greater good", depending on how that greater good is defined. When they do so, it's generally a trap/test, as it wouldn't make the actions themselves any less evil. Conceivably, in some such cases, neutral-aligned characters could commit said actions without changing allgnment. Good characters, though? No.
The PC involved knew his action was more than a little dodgy. That's why he covered it up. Good is restricted from acting in ways indistinguishable from its opposite, no matter how "practical" it might seem.
My two cents:
I think many in this discussion are making the mistake of assuming that the only two options in the situation are
a) Free the drow to go their merry way, resulting in them doing evil
b) Kill them
At least one poster has called taking option a "stupid good," but I tend to think that framing the question in such a limited binary is "stupid alignment." The characters actually have other options which avoid the worst of both the aforementioned choices. For example:
c) Imprison the drow somewhere with powerful, good, supervisors.
This keeps the drow from getting up to mischief, and it also keeps the PCs from committing an act of cold-blooded murder.
Now, the response that I anticipate is "But they have to fight the driders, this will delay/disadvantage them." And that's absolutely true, of course - making the correct moral choice WILL put them at a short-term disadvantage. But that's the thing about good and evil - evil often chooses to do the wrong thing because it's easier for them in that moment - evil is selfish and generally shortsighted, after all. Good characters will do the right thing, even if it makes their life harder in the short (or long) term, because that's what being good is all about - sacrificing and suffering for the sake of what's right.
And, as we see from the way the adventure played out, choosing the evil option came back to bite the theurge (and the party) in the butt - they lost the assistance of some good allies, the theurge was not able to join the special organization, and he is now viewed with distrust and suspicion. So even if we're operating under the notion of "smart good" and "stupid good," choosing evil wasn't smart, because it cost them in the long run.
A lot of players have gotten it into their heads that being ruthless is some kind of advantage, but it isn't. Evil is self-centered, which means at the end of the day, it can't count on friends or allies - evil characters stand alone at the end of the day, but good characters can draw upon the strength of all of their friends, and that's why they win more often than not.
All you really need to know you can get from Star Wars:
Luke: Is the dark side stronger?
Yoda: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
Luke: But how am I to know the good side from the bad?
Yoda: You will know... when you are calm, at peace, passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, NEVER for attack.
|
...The problem is the player consistently fails to accurately play a High Wisdom Character, which is what you expect of a Cleric....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.
An astute observation. Yes, the player is the problem, but he isn't a problem player. He doesn't lie about his dice rolls or habitually work to undermine the campaign or anything like that, and he's one of the nicest gamers you could hope to meet. Encouraging him to be less impulsive or more proactive when he's among the other characters hasn't really worked though.
The player in question is one of these guys who really just plays his own personality no matter what character he's made. It's both fortunate his own personality is inoffensive, and unfortunate he's so passive. He's not really impulsive so much as he's completely overwhelmed when he doesn't have other players to tell him what to do or say.
The slaves could have been members of the race who revolted and didn't want to commit acts of evil so they were made into slaves in order to work until they died. Being educated and wise, he would have easily seen this.
My players aren't always as bright as their PCs' ability scores imply. While the character's INT and WIS are high, I still leave it up to the players to ask for Sense Motive and Knowledge rolls, and ability checks for clues when they can't piece something out for themselves.
Coincidentally, it was later discovered the slaves in the quarry were the ones who had refused to serve as foot soldiers to the driders when the monsters offered them a way out of the pit and eventual transformation into the ruling-class driders. Granted, these slaves refused out of pride and assurance in their own racial superiority, but the fact they didn't betray their own people and heritage could be construed as a tiny glimmer of hope they could be redeemed or, at the very least, open to reason. The theurge never asked who the slaves were and the slaves didn't offer this information because it seemed trivial after he told them they were being set free.
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.
First, where do you get the 1 in a million odds? Forgotten Realms has whole communities of good and neutral aligned Drow. There are enough of them that they have their own diety. That leads me to odds in the range of 10^-2 -10^-3 range. On what grounds, do you think your numbers are more accurate than mine?
Second, even if the default chance of a drow being good is 10^-6, you are assuming that the character's actions had no effect in influencing this specific group. If a character took a baby goblin and raised it from near birth in civilized society, cared for it as if it were their own child, and taught them a better way to live, then 16 years later the DM says, "The goblin coup de grace you in your sleep. They are evil. It is just what they do." That would be some epic bad DMing. The specific events of slavery and being saved by a good person for no reward would be a generally positive influence in any creature's life, and thus could have as much as a 10^2 positive multiplier on the odds. If the character did more to help them, then the influence could be even more.
First, where do you get the 1 in a million odds? Forgotten Realms has whole communities of good and neutral aligned Drow. There are enough of them that they have their own diety. That leads me to odds in the range of 10^-2 -10^-3 range. On what grounds, do you think your numbers are more accurate than mine?
Depends on where you are in the time. Good drow were rare and didn't have communities until after the spell plague. They certainly aren't very large if I remember right, but I haven't read any literature for forgotten realms in a long time so pardon me if I'm off.
Ostracism and pariah are good paths to evil. A big thing about the questionable morality is you have no idea where they were going to go. There is a good chance they would just return the Underdark, and if anyone who heard of you letting go of drow would hate you and of killing them might actually like you. Morality is subjective and varied between individuals of course.
So far, I find myself in agreement with Shallowsoul on all aspects of this particular question.
First, where do you get the 1 in a million odds? Forgotten Realms has whole communities of good and neutral aligned Drow. There are enough of them that they have their own diety. That leads me to odds in the range of 10^-2 -10^-3 range. On what grounds, do you think your numbers are more accurate than mine?Depends on where you are in the time. Good drow were rare and didn't have communities until after the spell plague. They certainly aren't very large if I remember right, but I haven't read any literature for forgotten realms in a long time so pardon me if I'm off.
Ostracism and pariah are good paths to evil. A big thing about the questionable morality is you have no idea where they were going to go. There is a good chance they would just return the Underdark, and if anyone who heard of you letting go of drow would hate you and of killing them might actually like you. Morality is subjective and varied between individuals of course.
If you go back far enough in time if FR, the drow don't exist at all. At one time the elves were all a single race.
Another funny thing about drow. 99% of the drow that grow up in communities of good drow don't automatically become evil.
First, where do you get the 1 in a million odds? Forgotten Realms has whole communities of good and neutral aligned Drow. There are enough of them that they have their own diety. That leads me to odds in the range of 10^-2 -10^-3 range. On what grounds, do you think your numbers are more accurate than mine?Depends on where you are in the time. Good drow were rare and didn't have communities until after the spell plague. They certainly aren't very large if I remember right, but I haven't read any literature for forgotten realms in a long time so pardon me if I'm off.
Ostracism and pariah are good paths to evil. A big thing about the questionable morality is you have no idea where they were going to go. There is a good chance they would just return the Underdark, and if anyone who heard of you letting go of drow would hate you and of killing them might actually like you. Morality is subjective and varied between individuals of course.
If you go back far enough in time in most D&D worlds, the drow don't exist at all. At one time, the elves were all a single race.
Another funny thing about drow. 99% of the drow that grow up in communities of good drow don't automatically become evil.
|
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.That statement has nothing to do with helpless or already surrendered foes.
Where is this quote found. This wording is nowhere in the GMG.
Where is this quote found. This wording is nowhere in the GMG.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.That statement has nothing to do with helpless or already surrendered foes.
I have no idea...I just took it at face value...
Depends on where you are in the time. Good drow were rare and didn't have communities until after the spell plague. They certainly aren't very large if I remember right, but I haven't read any literature for forgotten realms in a long time so pardon me if I'm off.
That is not true. There was communities of good drow(they were not as big as cities) before the Spellplague.
Ostracism and pariah are good paths to evil. A big thing about the questionable morality is you have no idea where they were going to go. There is a good chance they would just return the Underdark, and if anyone who heard of you letting go of drow would hate you and of killing them might actually like you. Morality is subjective and varied between individuals of course.
So you are saying the popular choice should decide what is good or evil? Interesting. So if the popular choice is for you to kill all dwarves you meet...that is ok? (knowing that dwarves are not by nature evil)
Also...is it not truely heroic to do the right thing even if you might be hated for it? I know personaly I rather live like a hermit than to be accepted by society in general if means I have to say go and torture kittens(or puppies if you are a dog person) to death.
First, where do you get the 1 in a million odds? Forgotten Realms has whole communities of good and neutral aligned Drow. There are enough of them that they have their own diety. That leads me to odds in the range of 10^-2 -10^-3 range. On what grounds, do you think your numbers are more accurate than mine?
Second, even if the default chance of a drow being good is 10^-6, you are assuming that the character's actions had no effect in influencing this specific group. If a character took a baby goblin and raised it from near birth in civilized society, cared for it as if it were their own child, and taught them a better way to live, then 16 years later the DM says, "The goblin coup de grace you in your sleep. They are evil. It is just what they do." That would be some epic bad DMing. The specific events of slavery and being saved by a good person for no reward would be a generally positive influence in any creature's life, and thus could have as much as a 10^2 positive multiplier on the odds. If the character did more to help them, then the influence could be even more.
I was just saying that my numbers were as arbitrary as yours :) If drow are biologically inclined to do evil, its very hard to change that. Imagine if water was sentient and It was opposed to you drinking it. How long could you go before thirst overwhelmed you and you either snapped or died? Good intentions or not.
My point was only that PCs should make decisions based on their in-character knowledge. If they believe that drow are capital 'E' Evil, then killing them on sight is not evil. Its probably good. Just like killing demons is good. Redeeming them would be more good, but not required. On the other hand, if drow are just elves that grow up in an evil environment, then killing them is more questionable and redeeming them is the only Good option.
For the record, Golarion drow are literally infused with the power of Rovagug. Depending on your view, this makes them either irredeemable, victims of a generation-long curse, or the equivalent of normal people infected with a deadly and contagious disease. This means that the a Good option could be quarantining them and searching for a cure in the mean time.
Depends on where you are in the time. Good drow were rare and didn't have communities until after the spell plague. They certainly aren't very large if I remember right, but I haven't read any literature for forgotten realms in a long time so pardon me if I'm off.That is not true. There was communities of good drow(they were not as big as cities) before the Spellplague.
Are there? Huh, just going on what I remember from a few Drizzt books, some 4E material, and what I read on the wiki. I did say I might be wrong.
Ostracism and pariah are good paths to evil. A big thing about the questionable morality is you have no idea where they were going to go. There is a good chance they would just return the Underdark, and if anyone who heard of you letting go of drow would hate you and of killing them might actually like you. Morality is subjective and varied between individuals of course.So you are saying the popular choice should decide what is good or evil? Interesting. So if the popular choice is for you to kill all dwarves you meet...that is ok? (knowing that dwarves are not by nature evil)
Also...is it not truely heroic to do the right thing even if you might be hated for it? I know personaly I rather live like a hermit than to be accepted by society in general if means I have to say go and torture kittens(or puppies if you are a dog person) to death.
I didn't say that at all. I said treating someone as pariah or ostracizing an individual is likely to lead an individual to not being a part of society, and that between individuals morality is wildly different because its subjective. In one culture eating puppies and kittens might be fine, but in another they may be sacred.
I was just saying that my numbers were as arbitrary as yours :) If drow are biologically inclined to do evil, its very hard to change that. Imagine if water was sentient and It was opposed to you drinking it. How long could you go before thirst overwhelmed you and you either snapped or died? Good intentions or not.
That is a mighty big 'IF' to base a genocide policy on if you ask me. Also it is not true biologicalli inclined can be rather easy to change...it actualy can be easier to change than said cultural inclinations. Humans do it all the time.
My point was only that PCs should make decisions based on their in-character knowledge. If they believe that drow are capital 'E' Evil, then killing them on sight is not evil. Its probably good. Just like killing demons is good. Redeeming them would be more good, but not required. On the other hand, if drow are just elves that grow up in an evil environment, then killing them is more questionable and redeeming them is the only Good option.
So what you are saying is the morality of any action should be weighed upon what the person believes. So than are the drow evil? I am pretty sure they believe they are doing the right thing. Or what about somebody who believes all orphans will grow up to be evil criminals...is it than a good action for that person to go kill all orphans he finds?
For the record, Golarion drow are literally infused with the power of Rovagug. Depending on your view, this makes them either irredeemable, victims of a generation-long curse, or the equivalent of normal people infected with a deadly and contagious disease. This means that the a Good option could be quarantining them and searching for a cure in the mean time.
That is how the first generation became drow...and evil. It has no bearing (beyond the fact that they created the culture that drow now live in) on how or why the drow are now evil. For instances if you take a baby drow and raise it in a human family enviroment he/she would have the same potential to be good or evil as a human child would.
My point was only that PCs should make decisions based on their in-character knowledge. If they believe that drow are capital 'E' Evil, then killing them on sight is not evil. Its probably good. Just like killing demons is good.
Killing evil, is not a good act.
-Nearyn
Are there? Huh, just going on what I remember from a few Drizzt books, some 4E material, and what I read on the wiki. I did say I might be wrong.
Ah...RA Salvatore failed to mention it because his Drizzt would be little less of a 'special snowflake'. He ,I don't think, also never mentioned Elistraee as even existing in his books.
I didn't say that at all. I said treating someone as pariah or ostracizing an individual is likely to lead an individual to not being a part of society, and that between individuals morality is wildly different because its subjective. In one culture eating puppies and kittens might be fine, but in another they may be sacred.
I took :
and if anyone who heard of you letting go of drow would hate you and of killing them might actually like you.
As to mean it is not evil to kill helpless drow because everybody else will like you.
I am sorry if I misunderstood you.
Was inferring some people might not like the drow and might like to know that you slew them. Different people see the world in different ways, and your bound to get a variety of reactions for every action. Not that everyone would love you for it, but rather that some few might like to know you rid the world of a menace.
Edit: Looked it up. Elistraee was first noted in 1991, Drizzt novels started in 1988.
|
|
Why are we still discussing drow nature?
The OP already stated that the group knew nothing of drow so trying to justify this with their nature is metagaming.
Unless those slaves gave any sort of inclination that they were blood thirsty killers bent on attacking the next village they could find, there was no justification for killing them.
It was an evil act, period.
That is a mighty big 'IF' to base a genocide policy on if you ask me. Also it is not true biologicalli inclined can be rather easy to change...it actualy can be easier to change than said cultural inclinations. Humans do it all the time.
It depends on the biological inclination. If drow want to cause suffering in the same way that you want food when you are hungry, there is nothing you can do. Imagine having to feel the feeling of starvation for your whole life, while food is present all around you... Sure, some drow that really believe in the sanctity of life can do it. But most of them are little better than rabid dogs in this case.
So what you are saying is the morality of any action should be weighed upon what the person believes. So than are the drow evil? I am pretty sure they believe they are doing the right thing. Or what about somebody who believes all orphans will grow up to be evil criminals...is it than a good action for that person to go kill all orphans he finds?
If I said "based on how the world works" someone would have said that they can't know for sure. If the PCs have good reason to believe that the drow hunger for the destruction of life, then they should kill them.
That is how the first generation became drow...and evil. It has no bearing (beyond the fact that they created the culture that drow now live in) on how or why the drow are now evil.
How do you know that? Maybe the taint is passed mother to daughter, father to son.
For instances if you take a baby drow and raise it in a human family enviroment he/she would have the same potential to be good or evil as a human child would.
You are just assuming that. It depends on how the DM chooses to run drow. What if the drow literally have little fragments of Rovagug whispering evil into their ears 24/7. Sending them dreams of dark power... That would have way more influence on their up-bringing than your family environment.
Actually, that could be a cool character to play: A drow that was raised in a monastery where the power of Sarenrae blocked out the whispers of Rovagug. When the drow goes to become a crusader of Good, the whispers return and he must struggle to do what is right :)
Why are we still discussing drow nature?
The OP already stated that the group knew nothing of drow so trying to justify this with their nature is metagaming.
Unless those slaves gave any sort of inclination that they were blood thirsty killers bent on attacking the next village they could find, there was no justification for killing them.
It was an evil act, period.
Well when we bolded out the part that every drow they ran into was a sadistic monster and not much better than the driders if any better you then said "well that can apply to people too!" which I thought was unrelated myself. Many of the races in dnd are tend towards evil, and depending on the setting there could be an abundance of evil only creatures!
Saying "It was an evil act, period." doesn't make that statement correct or end the thread.
Was inferring some people might not like the drow and might like to know that you slew them. Different people see the world in different ways, and your bound to get a variety of reactions for every action. Not that everyone would love you for it, but rather that some few might like to know you rid the world of a menace.
Ok...and I am saying what those people think should not have any bearing on what is good or evil.
Edit: Looked it up. Elistraee was first noted in 1991, Drizzt novels started in 1988.
Off Topic: He wrote many Driizt novels after 1991 he could have include atleast some mention of it. It was a problem I had with the entire novel line. Each seris was written it seem in it's own FR...which would have been fine except all of it became canon...which tore the setting apart...till they literally had to tear the setting apart to fix it.
@Knight Magenta: Ok...I agree with you. It is dependent on how the GM treats or veiws the evil of drow. But it also should be based on what the player knows in character. If the characters never met a drow before and the first one they met is a evil backstabber sadistic radid dog...who is to say that the enmtire race is like that?
I mean in the OP situration as presented the character can't know dick...his reasoning is flaw. He reacted without knowing the situration.
One of his motives was to protect his(or the) village. But since they don't know about drow in the first place...we can infer that the village was never attacked by drow before. Why assume it would be now?
Also who is to say that those 20 Drow slaves they found were not slaves under the ruling drow already? Maybe they were enslaved because they were different.
For me atleast there is too many unknowns for a good person to just kill 30 creatures who posed no threat at the time.
Actually, that could be a cool character to play: A drow that was raised in a monastery where the power of Sarenrae blocked out the whispers of Rovagug. When the drow goes to become a crusader of Good, the whispers return and he must struggle to do what is right :)
I agree that would be a cool character concept...if you treat drow that way. Though it works great with Tieflings as well.
** spoiler omitted **
Jewish, Rus, Hungarian ancestry here (no more Austro-Hungarian empire with its welcoming policy towards the Jews and then WW2 finally wrecks everything). I know that feel bro.
Those orcs that aren't following the new way of peace and trade need to go though.
I've conveyed before on other threads the kobold story. We had a problem that kobolds were raiding and slaughtering non-coms of the region. So our party got hired to toast them. We get through their defences, get in the dungeon hide-out, find their women and children and then the dm starts trying to guilt us about the poor kobolds and all their offspring that will be left without fathers. What a mess, and the guilting, oh the guilting. A young kobold sorcerer boy sets my rogue on fire (he was too young to be able to cast spells, but the dm ignored it so he could throw out the dilemma). Yeah he got the scimitared.
Should have ended them all and finished the job.
In other news, ogres. Yeah they need to go.
My point was only that PCs should make decisions based on their in-character knowledge. If they believe that drow are capital 'E' Evil, then killing them on sight is not evil. Its probably good. Just like killing demons is good.Killing evil, is not a good act.
-Nearyn
Wrong, so wrong. You are getting rid of some of the evil in the world. Making it a better place with less evil in it!
Get rid of the marauding ogres in a region. It is a good act.
|
|
Why are we still discussing drow nature?
The OP already stated that the group knew nothing of drow so trying to justify this with their nature is metagaming.
Unless those slaves gave any sort of inclination that they were blood thirsty killers bent on attacking the next village they could find, there was no justification for killing them.
It was an evil act, period.
Well when we bolded out the part that every drow they ran into was a sadistic monster and not much better than the driders if any better you then said "well that can apply to people too!" which I thought was unrelated myself. Many of the races in dnd are tend towards evil, and depending on the setting there could be an abundance of evil only creatures!
Saying "It was an evil act, period." doesn't make that statement correct or end the thread.
*facepalm*
Just because you come across a group of people that are sadistic that means the whole race is tainted?
Still doesn't justify it no matter what you say and it is still an evil act no matter if I say it, you say it, or Betty down the street.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In dnd its actually a pretty safe assumption that if you ran into an evil race over and over the next one is probably... evil.
Edit: That is to say that every member of a race so far had been evil.
I kept an evil race from taking over the world or ravaging the world. Am I still evil?
|
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.As the statements "The GM always backstabs when we show mercy so you don't" or "Drow are monsters...or always evil". Rather you are merciful or not as no bearing on if it is metagame reason.
It's not metagamey when you realize that the PCs are seeing the same thing as “the monsters always backstab us when we show mercy” or “trying to redeem monsters through kindness always works.” The PCs are right there to see the results of their attempts to show mercy. If these attempts are successful, the PCs will be more likely to show mercy. If these attempts backfire in a costly way, the PCs are less likely to show mercy.
It's reasonable for PCs to make decisions based on their past experience and their knowledge about their world (relayed by the GM as "your character has/has not heard of good drow"). They still might make bad decisions, especially if they have limited information, which is what happened to the OP's player. But in a world in which Drow actually were irredeemably evil and the PCs knew this for sure, I don't think it would be a problem to kill them for being drow. That's the typical attitude towards demons and devils - you don't wait for the demon to kill a kitten, you smite it unless you've got strong evidence that you shouldn't smite this specific demon.
Where is this quote found. This wording is nowhere in the GMG.That statement has nothing to do with helpless or already surrendered foes.
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.
He's referring to this passage:
One of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoidchildren. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.
Search “goblin” on this page. It's a combination of material on alignment from the CRB, GMG, and I think Champions of Purity.
In dnd its actually a pretty safe assumption that if you ran into an evil race over and over the next one is probably... evil.
Edit: That is to say that every member of a race so far had been evil.I kept an evil race from taking over the world or ravaging the world. Am I still evil?
Depends on how you did it. Good fights evil. Evil fights evil too :)
Depends on how you did it. Good fights evil. Evil fights evil too :)In dnd its actually a pretty safe assumption that if you ran into an evil race over and over the next one is probably... evil.
Edit: That is to say that every member of a race so far had been evil.I kept an evil race from taking over the world or ravaging the world. Am I still evil?
Good fights good too. Thought I've met DMs who will forcibly convert you to at least neutral if you fight evil as evil on the basis that fighting evil is good even if its evil from evil by evil.
Reading some of the replies here, I'm left with the impression that some gamers read the "Knights of the Dinner Table" comics and confused "Parody" with "How to" guide. Teflon Billy would be proud of you all.
The act was evil, badly evil. Nazi evil, and not Godwin's law internet Nazi evil but actual Nazi evil because it's literally what the Nazi's did for the justifications they did it evil. That's evil.
Killing helpless beings because someone with a bias told you they were all bad, without any attempt like a Detect Evil spell or Knowledge check to confirm an [Evil] descriptor outsider status on your own, just because it's convenient at the time. *shrug*. Evil. Convenient evil, not even necessary evil (they weren't actively attacking you like a foe in a fight, nor was their any direct evidence that group would ever be a threat... or was even more than commoners of a different race).
I like how the GM handled it though. One action, no matter how horrendous, doesn't have to fell the entire soul of a good man. It's what he does after that matters, too. I do think the lying about it after should have dumped him at Neutral, forcing him to re-earn Good, but in the end if the player succeeds the end result will be the same and the GM made sure to do it in a way where the PC's actions had consequences anyway, specifically alignment consequences, without having to use the alignment system like a blunt club.
I can't help but think of the Order of the Stick comic... I know the site was down so a link probably isn't possible right now... but the one where the Wizard uses infernal power to smite down an evil black dragon, 'evil for good is good' and all, only to discover later... nevermind. Spoilers. Read the comic. Maybe it'll help some people here understand evil and good in a way beyond hack and slash.
In dnd its actually a pretty safe assumption that if you ran into an evil race over and over the next one is probably... evil.
Edit: That is to say that every member of a race so far had been evil.
But this was not runing into a race over and over again...this was one time...next kill them all.
I kept an evil race from taking over the world or ravaging the world. Am I still evil?
And in the end you become as corrupt as the 'evil' race you commited as...did you really 'save' the world?
There is a quote...I forgot who said it or how it goes exactly but it was something like...'Those who fight monster should beaware unless they become the monsters they fight'
Depends on how you did it. Good fights evil. Evil fights evil too :)In dnd its actually a pretty safe assumption that if you ran into an evil race over and over the next one is probably... evil.
Edit: That is to say that every member of a race so far had been evil.I kept an evil race from taking over the world or ravaging the world. Am I still evil?
Good fights good too. Thought I've met DMs who will forcibly convert you to at least neutral if you fight evil as evil on the basis that fighting evil is good even if its evil from evil by evil.
Yep, good fights good too. They just do it nicely :) Evil fighting against evil isn't "good" though... it's just normal business practices for those guys. :D
But this was not runing into a race over and over again...this was one time...next kill them all.In dnd its actually a pretty safe assumption that if you ran into an evil race over and over the next one is probably... evil.
Edit: That is to say that every member of a race so far had been evil.
Erm... I thought the drow were ran into several times, and their cousins the driders too. If they were evil in all appearances why should even the slaves not be evil? What if they were the convicts, the rejects of the rejected and releasing them was a bad idea?
Not a fan of applying morality to actions like this. You don't know the results and it could be good or bad. I don't like punishing them either, but do enjoy rewarding them because it proved outside the box thinking and the ability to act. When there is no good choice, you should come to expect actions that take an extreme or a suggestion when they are thinking and can't decide on their own.
Pardon the gray morality thinking, its of course an opinion and bias, as are many other statements made in morality threads.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
And here is your quote, in order for it to apply we would have to apply additional information and action. I find the drow's death less cruel than slaughtering them like cattle, and I'm not sure how much better it is than forcing them into the frontlines of the fight with the driders. That would prove death and a brutal tactic. Its a far step from eliminating something that would threaten you, and eliminating something only for sadistic pleasure or in worship of an evil deity.
@Knight Magenta: Ok...I agree with you. It is dependent on how the GM treats or veiws the evil of drow. But it also should be based on what the player knows in character. If the characters never met a drow before and the first one they met is a evil backstabber sadistic radid dog...who is to say that the enmtire race is like that?
Yup!
I mean in the OP situration as presented the character can't know dick...his reasoning is flaw. He reacted without knowing the situration.One of his motives was to protect his(or the) village. But since they don't know about drow in the first place...we can infer that the village was never attacked by drow before. Why assume it would be now?
I think on of the NPCs was mentioned as saying that it would be his problem if the PC let the drow live. But I agree with you. The way the PC acted would shock most good characters I was playing.
Also who is to say that those 20 Drow slaves they found were not slaves under the ruling drow already? Maybe they were enslaved because they were different.For me atleast there is too many unknowns for a good person to just kill 30 creatures who posed no threat at the time.
I agree. This is actually an interesting question: Some number of enemy combatants (We don't know if the drow are good. Presumably, the default is enemy) have surrendered. Now what do you do?
We can try to rehabilitate them, but IC this may not be possible if the party is on the move. Also, OC, I don't always want to play that type of thing out. Also, if the party keeps taking prisoners, they may not have the resources to work on redeeming them all...
We can kill them all, but since we are playing highly good characters, this tastes bad.
We can use magical brain-washing, like Atonement. Atonement does say you can't use duress, but there is enough wiggle room to offer a Hobson's Choice: "Become good, or we will set you free, in this wilderness filled with deadly beasts and you with no food to your name". Though this option also seems slimy.
|
|
This is part of why I really like Redeemer paladins.
No brainwashing to turn evil people good, but it can sure as hell lock down their ability to do evil.
On a related note, I love that Champions of Purity states outright that the alignment-switching alchemical discoveries are extremely shady by their very nature. It was nice to see the ramifications of that potential violation of free will being talked about after years of the helm of opposite alignment never getting examined for how creepy it really is.
My point was only that PCs should make decisions based on their in-character knowledge. If they believe that drow are capital 'E' Evil, then killing them on sight is not evil. Its probably good. Just like killing demons is good.Killing evil, is not a good act.
-Nearyn
Wrong, so wrong. You are getting rid of some of the evil in the world. Making it a better place with less evil in it!
Get rid of the marauding ogres in a region. It is a good act.
Citation please?
Killing evil, is not a good act.
Getting rid of the marauding ogres can be done in a variety of ways. Removing evil from the world, can also be done through redemption, kindness, and self-sacrifice. Through compromise and hard work. By being willing to do the right thing, even when the entire world, even those who would be your allies, come crashing down on you for it. Look at Golarions first democracy, Andoran.
The system differentiates between the alignment of characters and the alignment of their actions. Good characters, at least adventurers, commit evil acts all the time, because it is convenient, or because the gamemaster hand-waves the issue, because he want to keep the narrative flowing. Is that wrong? No. But it does not change the rules.
Alignment describes motivations, and is deliberately broad and allows for alot of flexible roleplaying. The alignment of acts is pretty strictly defined, because there is a class in the game called Paladin, that has a pretty detrimental class-feature tied into the alignment of the acts he commits, thus necessitating an objective, easy-to-understand alignment system. And by that system, flat out killing stuff "because its evulz" is no less evil. At best, it is neutral.
-Nearyn
"You're a looney."
"You're a looney."
"The black knight always triumphs! Have at you!"
Well I am glad we are both on the same page of that grail quest.
Now I just have to get you to understand that killing off evil monsters and marauders is a good act, and has been in every version of D&D prior to PF. You know, save the kingdom/princess/poor villagers from an evil scourge? Yeah?
I'm not arguing that defeating the villain and saving the kingdom, is not the age-old point of the game. Usually you are an adventurer in these games, so go out and adventure, I get that. That is not what I am talking about.
What I am saying is that by the rules, killing evil is not good. Note how I said nothing about defeating evil. Defeating evil, especially if doing so saves alot of people, can be a good act. But the act of killing, is, by the rules, either neutral or evil. Never good.
I'm not arguing whether certain alignments are permitted to do something. Whether the game is about players traditionally doing something, or any such thing. I am merely stating, that if you open the CRB and read through the section on alignment, you will come to find, that killing is evil. At best, it is neutral.
I will gladly explain my reasoning and provide citation if you want me to.
I would be glad to see any rules citation, supporting that the act of killing anyone for any reason, is a good act :)
-Nearyn
Erm... I thought the drow were ran into several times, and their cousins the driders too. If they were evil in all appearances why should even the slaves not be evil? What if they were the convicts, the rejects of the rejected and releasing them was a bad idea?
No from the way I understood they have been only exposed to that one group of drow they allied with.
As for the slaves not being evil...well if they were the rejecteds from a evil society...maybe they are rejects because they are not evil?
Not a fan of applying morality to actions like this. You don't know the results and it could be good or bad. I don't like punishing them either, but do enjoy rewarding them because it proved outside the box thinking and the ability to act. When there is no good choice, you should come to expect actions that take an extreme or a suggestion when they are thinking and can't decide on their own.
The thing is after killing somebody it is kinda of hard afterwards when you found out that you were wrong to reverse killing them. Even in D&D. So maybe collect more evidence...especialy in this case where they were not currently a threat.
Pardon the gray morality thinking, its of course an opinion and bias, as are many other statements made in morality threads.
Very true...but it is still fun to debate it. Also it gets our post count up. ;)
And here is your quote, in order for it to apply we would have to apply additional information and action. I find the drow's death less cruel than slaughtering them like cattle, and I'm not sure how much better it is than forcing them into the frontlines of the fight with the driders. That would prove death and a brutal tactic. Its a far step from eliminating something that would threaten you, and eliminating something only for sadistic pleasure or in worship of an evil deity.
So you find tricking the drow into a poisnous acidic gas chamber(sounds familair...I guess the PC did not know where the ovens were) to be less cruel then giving them a quick death?
That is whole another issue...lets assume the drow are irredeemably evil. Sure whatever you need to do stop them would be considred 'good' by me. But there is a difference say to sneaking in a drow camp and killing them all in their sleep...as the drow are still a threat...and maybe that is the only tactic that will work. But that is not the case here...these drow were broken and beaten and probably very weak. As Sarenrae says when encountering irredeemable evil give it a swift death.
...The problem is the player consistently fails to accurately play a High Wisdom Character, which is what you expect of a Cleric....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.An astute observation. Yes, the player is the problem, but he isn't a problem player. He doesn't lie about his dice rolls or habitually work to undermine the campaign or anything like that, and he's one of the nicest gamers you could hope to meet. Encouraging him to be less impulsive or more proactive when he's among the other characters hasn't really worked though.
The player in question is one of these guys who really just plays his own personality no matter what character he's made. It's both fortunate his own personality is inoffensive, and unfortunate he's so passive. He's not really impulsive so much as he's completely overwhelmed when he doesn't have other players to tell him what to do or say.
In which case I again strongly recommend you talk to him about retiring that character & bringing in one who works better as a lieutenant-type character. The section I bolded is another key issue & indicator that a high wisdom character may not be for him. As long as he continues playing this character, situations like you described will continue happening.
I am not making a judgment on his value as either a person or a player, but if he has the difficulties with self-direction you seem to be indicating he will continue to make poor choices in stressful situations, choices which will adversely affect his portrayal of his character & consequently lead to a lessening of his, your & other players enjoyment of the game.Alternatively, another, less 'extreme' response on your part might be to consider giving him notification in situations such as you described, when it becomes apparent that he is strongly considering an action without giving equal consideration to the probable consequences of the action, which is something a high-Wisdom character would do. Unfortunately, it sounds as though you have done this on multiple occasions. Which gets back to my recommendation that he consider a different character that better matches his playstyle.
There are reasons why don't play High-Wisdom characters & they sound rather similar to what your player is dealing with.