
Drachasor |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say he's within the realm of chaotic good, there. From the sound of it he's not killing out of convenience, but rather doing a bit of cowboy justice. Clearly played out as a Law vs Chaos thing.
As for the Order of Sword, I'd say it's arguably alright. It's really up to you, but I'd say they didn't really 'wrong' him so much as try to murder him and his fellows with swords, not to mention the murder of that messenger.
I really read the 'mercy to those who have wronged him' bit as an edict of not being a petty vengeance seeker over slights and insults not a declaration of having to show mercy to people that tried to kill you. I mean they came at him with a sword, right?
Either way, the player seems to think it's right, so if you decide otherwise, I'd just let him know about it for future reference, and not hit him with any penalties for playing the character the way he thought was right for this particular incident.
It's not chaotic good if he ignores the fact they could be mind controlled or mislead, doesn't care about their lives, etc. That's just not good. As an act, it isn't Chaotic Good, but at best some form of neutral. He killed them the way he did because he wanted them dead -- it was more important than his friend's opinion (who had equal or greater standing in society), and even his friend's health. It wasn't about justice or safety either, since the Alchemist proposed another solution.
And if you read "mercy to those who have wronged him" as "trivial mercy, but anyone that doesn't anything that actually wrongs me means I still kill them" then you don't understand what it means at all. You've converted it into something that essentially means nothing. It's one thing if they died in the fight, since that's unavoidable. It's another to kill them WHEN THEY ARE AT HIS MERCY. Does that help you see where "showing mercy" fits in here? The player chose a higher path for his character, then ignored it. That means there's some definitely messed up stuff going on and the player and DM need to have a talk.
Summing up on what could have been done with the bandits.
1. They could have been brought back to the local authorities easily enough. The player/character ignored reality because he wanted them dead.
2. They could have been examined for mind control (already encountered locally) or other malign influence. This was brought up. The player/character ignored all possibilities because he wanted them dead.
3. The Alchemist was willing to handle things so that the quest wouldn't be delayed. The player/character beat his friend up (in a duel) because killing the helpless attackers was more important to him than the health of his friend or the judgement of a social equal/better.
4. The bandits could have been contained easily with manacles or rope as well. The player/character ignored this because he really wanted them dead.
You guys have to look at just how determined the player was to kill these guys. He was really, really, really determined to kill them. It didn't matter if they were tricked, mind controlled, could be brought to local authorities, his friend was in the way, etc, etc. Kill, kill, kill!
It's one thing if there's no one else to dispense justice. It's one thing if you can't keep them contained. It's one thing if they are heartlessly evil. It's entirely a different thing if none of these are the case. The Cavalier DID NOT CARE, HE JUST WANTED THEM DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.
This is decidedly NOT good, certainly not lawful, and quite possibly chaotic evil -- one could argue for chaotic neutral with evil leanings. I am not saying the entirety of this character is chaotic evil, I'm just look at this one scenario.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

It is your call, but I personally would say it's an evil act. Not enough in itself to warrant immediate alignment change, but enough that the Cavalier's player should be warned against such behavior in the future if he wants to keep his alignment.
Probably also a violation of his edicts on the "Mercy" grounds, though given that the player seemed to have different expectations for morality a warning might be appropriate there, too (though losing challenge for 24 hours isn't nearly as bad as "fall-need-atonement" like the paladin, cleric, and druid get).
1. Efficiency: This was the only argument given in game/character.
Since this is the only argument given in-game, it's the only relevant argument. The rest of it was later rationalization to make it look like his actions were morally justified. If it had occurred to him at the time that it was more merciful, just, and safe to execute the unconscious criminals on the spot, he would have said so when the Alchemist voiced his moral concerns. Thus in the moment he was only thinking about efficiency, and killing someone for reasons of efficiency is generally speaking an evil act. (In fact, Ultimate Campaign gives that situation as an example of an evil act.)
The cavalier had to kill the men because the team was in a rush, and stabilizing the men and transporting them would take too much time. Factually, they were in a hurry, but not to the extent that an few hours one way or the other would be remarkable. The characters knew this. Furthermore, the duel, immolation, and transport of the unconscious Alchemist took about at least as much time (if not significantly more) as the stabilization and transport plan.
The fact that it was actually not more efficient makes it even worse - if the Cavalier really was worried about whatever mission was making them rush, he wouldn't have wasted time fighting the Alchemist. At that point he was acting out of pride, which is a worse reason for killing someone than efficiency.
Even if we accept the other reasons the player gave as being more than rationalization, he's still not in the right.
2. Mercy - if it were merciful to kill the bandits because of their injuries rather than heal them and take them prisoner, it would be merciful for the PCs to CdG each other when they fall unconscious after battle. I can see a CG character arguing that a quick death is merciful compared to imprisonment, extended trial, and public execution, but that's not the angle the Cavalier is taking.
3. Safety - as you said, he was factually incorrect about the amount of time it would take for the Alchemist to stabilize them.
4. Public Safety - It is equally likely that interrogating the bandits would have yielded information useful in defeating the magic user with minimal loss of life.
5. Justice - The Alchemist had at least as much authority to pass sentence on the bandits as the Cavalier did, and as he rightly pointed out the possibility of mind control means that they weren't necessarily meaningfully guilty in which case their execution would be an injustice.

Drachasor |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2. Mercy - if it were merciful to kill the bandits because of their injuries rather than heal them and take them prisoner, it would be merciful for the PCs to CdG each other when they fall unconscious after battle. I can see a CG character arguing that a quick death is merciful compared to imprisonment, extended trial, and public execution, but that's not the angle the Cavalier is taking.
A CG character could argue that, but he believes in the freedom of each person. He wouldn't decide for the bandits which was better. Heck, even killing someone because they asked you to is probably questionable for a CG, seems more CN. Killing them because you decided they are better dead than locked up? That's quite possible CE (though an interesting twist on it).

Calybos1 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would point out that evil characters almost never self-identify as evil. Instead they claim to be "efficient" or "pragmatic." These terms should alert a GM to the presence of evil PCs engaged in rationalization.
A player who defends his characters actions as 'practical,' while airily dismissing any discussion of morality as 'fluffy-bunny nonsense,' is defending evil and should be handled accordingly.

![]() |

You'd think a Chaotic Good character would be a bit more forgiving in the choices other people, even bandits, make in life. Bit more charitable about the whole thing.
That said of course alignment isn't a hard line rule. It's the ideal that the character wants to strive too in general and a useful tool for the player to help imagine how some other creature would normally behave, which in this case is given as something like a person with "a good heart with a free spirit."
I really can't see how someone trying to live up to those ideals can go that far into mass murderer territory, however one incident isn't proof of something deserving an alignment shift most of the time. Everyone has a moment of weakness now and then and other then those who have chosen the life of a Paladin they should be expected.
Keep some more notes on the behavior and then speak to the player in private if you feel some other alignment would be more appropriate and then you'll have examples of the types of behaviors you didn't feel were appropriate to hold up. As others have said that certainly wasn't merciful.
I do love the Cavalier class but it seems like perhaps your player from the small amount of information I've got access too might be better off in the Order of the Cockatrice.

Aranna |

It seems fairly clear:
- Execution of unconscious villians: Neutral act. If they were certain these were bandits who were plaguing the trade road then the act could still be considered good. BUT they can't be certain of that can they. NO alignment violation for a CG character, BUT this is as Unchivalrous an act as I can think of. He has clearly violated his cavalier code with whatever if any consequence that carries.
- Challenging a friend to a duel: Neutral to evil act depending on the situation. Chivalrous? Yes. He was willing to kill a friend over a simple matter of expedience ... so this time the act was evil. The fact that the alchemist talked him into a non lethal duel is irrelevant he would have killed the alchemist otherwise.
One evil act wouldn't change his alignment... He just looses his challenge ability for 24 hours for the first act.

gnomersy |
Calybos1 wrote:I would point out that evil characters almost never self-identify as evil. Instead they claim to be "efficient" or "pragmatic."That's an excellent point!
I'm skirting Godwin's Law here, but even the most evil people in history claim duty and efficiency as justifications.
Relation is not causation. Just because people in history claimed duty and efficiency as justification does not mean all cases where people claim such are evil.
Even good people have to make judgment calls in war and it should be noted that even so recently as WW1 it was common to see soldier going around after a battle bayonetting the corpses to make sure they were dead.
Applying modern morals to fictional or past events tends to be highly questionable in the very least. Because all morals are relative to the society in question.
This is why the objective morality system presented in the game consistently fails under pressure, because human beings are incapable of thinking in an objective moral system they have no framework to base that morality upon other than their own.

Drachasor |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why the objective morality system presented in the game consistently fails under pressure, because human beings are incapable of thinking in an objective moral system they have no framework to base that morality upon other than their own.
Not really. It has a lot more to do with the fact most people don't think much about ethics at all. Not in depth, not seriously. Combine that with how easy the game makes it to dehumanize enemies (they're fictional, you don't look at them in the face, etc, etc). The result is a lot of poor behavior that gets rationalized away.
The Cavalier in question was not efficient, just, or anything else remotely good. He was dead-set on killing those people come hell or high water. It didn't matter they might be brainwashed, misguided, have good reasons, could be taken to proper authorities, etc. He wanted them dead so he did everything he could to ensure their death.

gnomersy |
Not really. It has a lot more to do with the fact most people don't think much about ethics at all. Not in depth, not seriously. Combine that with how easy the game makes it to dehumanize enemies (they're fictional, you don't look at them in the face, etc, etc). The result is a lot of poor behavior that gets rationalized away.
The Cavalier in question was not efficient, just, or anything else remotely good. He was dead-set on killing those people come hell or high water. It didn't matter they might be brainwashed, misguided, have good reasons, could be taken to proper authorities, etc. He wanted them dead so he did everything he could to ensure their death.
Define good morals for me oh great paragon of wisdom and virtue and convince me that your justification for that is sound in some objective universal sense.

Drachasor |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Define good morals for me oh great paragon of wisdom and virtue and convince me that your justification for that is sound in some objective universal sense.
Here's a start. Life's pretty precious. Don't kill helpless and contained people without a least a little bit of investigation.
That's an easy one.
Oh, and it goes triple if there's a possibility of mind control or other untoward influence.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it them? Then do not be too swift to deal out death in judgement, fearing for your own safety."
(Incidentally, those lines were written by a guy who was in World War One... although he was probably not one of the people mentioned up-thread as bayonetting unconscious enemies to 'make sure'.)

gnomersy |
It bears noting that the person they didn't kill repeatedly tried to murder them got them captured by evil giant spiders and orcs and bit off the guys finger and the only reason that worked out for them was because of literary license.
If you ask me I'd rather skip letting my enemies have 15 more cracks at me.

ShadowyFox |

gnomersy, I agree that I'd not want to give the enemy another chance, which is why I wouldn't take any sort of order/class/PrC/whatever that requires me to show mercy to those who have wronged me.
These dudes? Definitely wronged the cavalier. And the cavalier didn't even know if they were mind-controlled into doing it.
As much as we want to be practical...this order's edicts are very much against practical or convenient.

![]() |
gnomersy - A valid point!
Back to the topic: I feel the issue isn't necessarily due to violation of alignment (for once!) but violation of the cavalier's particular edicts. He's specifically required to show mercy to those who have done him wrong, and in this case none was shown. In fact, he went out of his way - and beat a 'friend' senseless - to slit a few throats. I suspect this player chose the wrong Order. If we can leave alignment aside and just look at what the Order's edicts require, there's a chance of consensus!
But if we bring alignment into it... well, Admiral Ackbar sums up my feelings about alignment threads nicely in his famous line. ;)

gnomersy |
gnomersy - A valid point!
Back to the topic: I feel the issue isn't necessarily due to violation of alignment (for once!) but violation of the cavalier's particular edicts. He's specifically required to show mercy to those who have done him wrong, and in this case none was shown. In fact, he went out of his way - and beat a 'friend' senseless - to slit a few throats. I suspect this player chose the wrong Order. If we stick to the edict we might achieve some kind of consensus, whereas alignment debates on the boards are always... well, Admiral Ackbar said it best. ;)
Oh we were agreeing then! XD my bad. I swear I always get confused on the alignment posts where everyone is going with it.
But yeah definitely broke his edict.
Although as a DM it's nice to warn your players when actions will cause a fall/alignment break/violation of code some think that takes something away from the game. I'd still say give him the option to change his order as a freebie if the game is newish and he's not feeling the code.(I think Cav's can do it anyways but it has some penalties?)

Drachasor |
It bears noting that the person they didn't kill repeatedly tried to murder them got them captured by evil giant spiders and orcs and bit off the guys finger and the only reason that worked out for them was because of literary license.
If you ask me I'd rather skip letting my enemies have 15 more cracks at me.
The same literary license that kept him alive also caused him to show up and be so much trouble in the first place.
So if someone mind controls your friend, would you kill them? How about your friend's friend? Or what if it is your friend's friend's friend?
What if you've just encountered some mind control and aren't sure your frined's friend's friend was mind controlled or not. Still kill them or do you not kill them? And heck, there could be some other mitigating factor.
Add to this the fact you are in a location where the authorities aren't far away, so actually getting them in jail is easy enough. That's just as effective in stopping them -- these guys clearly aren't wizards.
Not even bothering to find out what their story is makes killing them blatantly evil. That happens to be something true in the game and real life.

gnomersy |
The same literary license that kept him alive also caused him to show up and be so much trouble in the first place.So if someone mind controls your friend, would you kill them? How about your friend's friend? Or what if it is your friend's friend's friend?
What if you've just encountered some mind control and aren't sure your frined's friend's friend was mind controlled or not. Still kill them or do you not kill them? And heck, there could be some other mitigating factor.
Add to this the fact you are in a location where the authorities aren't far away, so actually getting them in jail is easy enough. That's just as effective in stopping them -- these guys clearly aren't wizards.
Not even bothering to find out what their story is makes killing them blatantly evil. That happens to be something true in the game and real life.
And? Just because Tolkien's whole story functioned solely because of literary license doesn't mean that people should expect that in pathfinder sometimes instead you show mercy and then promptly get murdered by the guy tomorrow.
Do I have proof that my friend was mind controlled? Were there any indicators? Perhaps a vacant eyed look, some sort of device attached to his brainstem, an odd inhuman quality to his movements? Did I just win the lottery and am wandering around in golden trousers? Chances are good that once he's legitimately tried to kill me I'm going to kill him back that's the end of the story as far as I'm concerned unless I already have proof he's being mind controlled.
Just because I've heard mind control can happen doesn't mean I'll assume that's the default scenario, particularly when I met the guy trying to stab me under perfectly normal circumstances for people trying to stab me.
Also nobody ever escapes from jail or their binding in these rpgs no sirree.

gnomersy |
We are assuming these people are disabled and helpless when you kill them, btw.
I'm aware but they didn't just start off disabled and helpless. If I round up a bunch of random unconscious people and murder them that's evil I think we'd all agree but when the people only got there as a direct result of trying to kill me until the point that they were beaten unconscious that changes things imo.
If the DM wanted me to believe that these were anything but thugs and bandits he should have included it in the story before they were unconscious.

gnomersy |
He did... by presenting you with the Core Rulebook of Pathfinder, which includes a system of objective morality with defined alignments and the rules that go with them.
Oh really?
Based on what I read in that half a paragraph blurb in the PF Core Rulebook you seem to believe can tell you everything and anything. Good characters preserve INNOCENT life.
People who try to murder you are generally non innocent, in absence of any proof that they are innocent it isn't unreasonable to judge them based on the only interaction you've had with these people.
Now had the GM included descriptor terms that would make it reasonable to assume they were mind controlled I might be inclined to believe it was evil to kill them without checking into their background but again if he didn't, as far as I know they want to murder me that makes them non innocent as such I have no obligation to preserve their lives so killing them is within my alignment as a good character.

Maldollen |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I know that what i am about to say isn't going to help the OP in his current problem but hopefully it will help him avoid similar problems in the future.
I apologize in advance for any offense, i really don't mean to insult or offend anyone.@OP
Was there any reason (at all) to have the bandits (or some of them) alive? If not then you always write off the enemies as dead at the end of every encounter, yes i know it doesn't follow the rules and it's metagaming but that way you avoid situations like that.
This.
The moral/ethical/alignment/code of conduct debate going on has been entertaining to read through, and some very good points have been made, but the overarching question is, how/why were there survivors among the bandits that did not flee? Were the PCs, or some of them, doing non-lethal damage? PCs fall unconscious when they hit 0 hit points (barring some ability that states otherwise), and die at -CON, but foes die at 0 hit points, only falling unconscious if dealt enough non-lethal damage or falling victim to some ability that renders them unconscious (sleep spell/sap attack etc.). It is a mechanic of the game that I believe is in place at least in part to prevent "heroes" from having to kill unconscious foes to move on in their adventure.

![]() |

PCs fall unconscious when they hit 0 hit points (barring some ability that states otherwise), and die at -CON, but foes die at 0 hit points, only falling unconscious if dealt enough non-lethal damage or falling victim to some ability that renders them unconscious (sleep spell/sap attack etc.). It is a mechanic of the game that I believe is in place at least in part to prevent "heroes" from having to kill unconscious foes to move on in their adventure.
Not quite. By the rules, NPCs, including foes, have the same unconsciousness window as PCs. It's just commonly played as if they're dead as soon as they drop for the reason you stated.
Weirdo wrote:2. Mercy - if it were merciful to kill the bandits because of their injuries rather than heal them and take them prisoner, it would be merciful for the PCs to CdG each other when they fall unconscious after battle. I can see a CG character arguing that a quick death is merciful compared to imprisonment, extended trial, and public execution, but that's not the angle the Cavalier is taking.A CG character could argue that, but he believes in the freedom of each person. He wouldn't decide for the bandits which was better. Heck, even killing someone because they asked you to is probably questionable for a CG, seems more CN. Killing them because you decided they are better dead than locked up? That's quite possible CE (though an interesting twist on it).
I agree that the best CG option is to ask the bandits whether they prefer immediate death to the courts (assuming that when they wake up they appear to actually be bandits and not duped or mind-controlled). I do not agree that killing someone who asked you to kill them is inappropriate for a CG character. It is perfectly reasonable for a CG character to decide that freedom must include the freedom to choose one's own manner of death, even if the same character normally places a very high value on life.

![]() |

The bandits would have all been dead, but the Alchemist player specifically stated that he wanted to treat them. I like to give players options (and I knew the Alc wanted to question the men about their leader...that info could prove crucial) I ruled that he could possibly save them.
Also, at least one of them was definitely alive since he wasn't touched with a sword but suffocated by a snake.

Milo33 |

IMO, the cavaliers actions absolutely fall within the CG alignment. Slaying murders is a good act, and they by definition don't have much patience for a trial when they know someone is guilty. Settling things with a non lethal duel also is within these confines. The tricky bit is the cavalier restrictions. It should be noted that the texts says he must honorable and just at all times. However, the two qualities are given equal emphasis. Honorable and just. These brigbands make a living killing people and have done it at least once already. I would argue that a summery execution of attempted murders falls into the confines of "just."

![]() |

I will try to answer this question on the grounds of morale ethics, and of law. As a soldier of over 10 years in the real world we can be faced with something like this on the battlefield. The first pass a soldier makes over the battlefield the soldier can kill and engage enemies. If the soldier returns to "finish off" enemy combatants you will be court martialed for war crimes and murder. Since the battle was already over. Now on the battle of ethics. Killing someone in their sleep is dishonorable. Case in point I remember a certain story book barbarian that woke up a dragon to fight it fairly. If this character was good then he would of lost his good alignment. He even beat one of his own friends up to KILL another helpless person. A knight must follow the rules of their codes. All knights must follow simple rules of honor and virtue. Also they must maintain a noble bearing. There is nothing noble in killing defenseless people. That act is evil period. Evil to defeat evil still corrupts. This player wants to say that he challenged his friend to a duel. Ok well that makes him lawful...the act of killing defenseless sentient people is evil. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE EVIL. If you want to be overly good at this point you would of to detain them and give them to the proper authorities to judge them.

Buri |

@Milo
So what if they had been compelled? What if they were being held hostage by on do this by an outside force? What if they only did it because due to their life circumstance this was all they do to get by?
There are so many unknowns to the PCs in this situation. Tons of people resort to crime only after their life has otherwise gone to s+~#. In pathfinder killing innocents is evil. I'm not saying I would have shifted him to evil but I would have warned the player against such behavior that it would eventually lead to an alignment shift.

Drachasor |
The bandits would have all been dead, but the Alchemist player specifically stated that he wanted to treat them. I like to give players options (and I knew the Alc wanted to question the men about their leader...that info could prove crucial) I ruled that he could possibly save them.
Also, at least one of them was definitely alive since he wasn't touched with a sword but suffocated by a snake.
Wow, how long has this game been going for? Does the Cavalier player often screw up the plans of the other players when he disagrees with them? Because it seems like the guy really went completely out of his way just because he didn't like the Alchemist's idea. (Really the more you explain the situation the worse it sounds).
Personally IF this was how he usually responds to things he doesn't like, I'd get pretty miffed if I was in the game.

ShadowyFox |

Also, at least one of them was definitely alive since he wasn't touched with a sword but suffocated by a snake.
That right there was not showing mercy, then. Honestly, I'm definitely agreeing with the general consensus. He doesn't like when other people suggest plans that are not only within his alignment, but fit GREAT with his edicts.
I don't know whether this is the player doing this, or if the player has separated his character from his own beliefs, but at this point, it does not really matter. You've got more than enough info showing he was blatantly disregarding his edicts. The alignment thing is something you'll have to come to a decision on, but the edicts part is something you need to address.
Regardless of whether he loses the stuff for his alignment, he has done everything necessary to lose his challenge ability for 24 hours. I would definitely talk to him and show him exactly how you see that he broke the edicts, and just tell him your concerns.
I mean, obviously he took out someone who, in your words, would have had crucial information.

![]() |

The bandits would have all been dead, but the Alchemist player specifically stated that he wanted to treat them. I like to give players options (and I knew the Alc wanted to question the men about their leader...that info could prove crucial) I ruled that he could possibly save them.
If your Alchemist said "I want to do X" and your Cavalier said "No, I will beat you up and do the opposite of X" you have bigger problems than whether there's an alignment/edict violation on the table. Earlier it sounded like an unfortunate escalation of an argument - now it's sounding more like the Cavalier's player just doesn't work well with others.

Paladin of Baha-who? |

The moral/ethical/alignment/code of conduct debate going on has been entertaining to read through, and some very good points have been made, but the overarching question is, how/why were there survivors among the bandits that did not flee? Were the PCs, or some of them, doing non-lethal damage? PCs fall unconscious when they hit 0 hit points (barring some ability that states otherwise), and die at -CON, but foes die at 0 hit points, only falling unconscious if dealt enough non-lethal damage or falling victim to some ability that renders them unconscious (sleep spell/sap attack etc.). It is a mechanic of the game that I believe is in place at least in part to prevent "heroes" from having to kill unconscious foes to move on in their adventure.
Where are you seeing this? NPCs are treated exactly the same as PCs in regards to injury and death. Only creatures whose type has a rule saying they die at 0 hp, such as undead, do this.

Milo33 |

@Milo
So what if they had been compelled? What if they were being held hostage by on do this by an outside force? What if they only did it because due to their life circumstance this was all they do to get by?
There are so many unknowns to the PCs in this situation. Tons of people resort to crime only after their life has otherwise gone to s$*+. In pathfinder killing innocents is evil. I'm not saying I would have shifted him to evil but I would have warned the player against such behavior that it would eventually lead to an alignment shift.
Pathfinder, like all D&D is a game where problems are solved with violence. I'm not saying that indiscrimate violence is ok, but the very first session of Jade Regent path has you slaughtering an entire goblin villiage. The villiage was a menance, engaging in petty theft and the like. If killing every single one of them was OK, then how could it possibly be evil to execute people who just did their best to MURDER you.
Life circumstances (poor, hungry, greedy) dosen't really factor into it in my opinion. When someone tries to kill you it is not an evil act to kill them back.
As for the mind control/coercion concern, once we start considering that as a factor it becomes more or less impossible to punish anyone for anything. Anyone could claim to be magically manipulated, and it would be very hard to prove otherwise.
Let me stress that I'm not saying that summary execution is a good thing in real life, but in the context of a fantasy game featuring heroes that battle against evil, I would say this is fine, and well within the confines of chaotic good.

Buri |

Solved with violence but never have to kill. You could also scare off the goblins if you wanted. It's called thinking outside the box and is the reason I play tabletop instead of MMOs. I can point to that random tree and climb it, damnit! I like having that option. Also, the game gives awards for defeating encounters and not necessarily killing all enemies.
The mind control excuse should be common in a world of magic. Jesus, young children pull that it wasn't me/wasn't my fault excuse all the damn time and they can't even grasp the concepts of magic. That's why it's ONLY a DC 20 sense motive check to see if someone is under compulsion magic. It's super easy by just level 5. It's why there are several abilities that break charms and compulsions outright or give you new saves.
The reason there are so many ways to deal with those magics is because it's a common threat.
S&!%, In the AP I'm running there's a charmed enemy the PCs face around level 6-7 that they fight that has killed because he was charmed into doing so and is further charmed to attack anyone entering the area he's at. If the PCs could break his charm you even get bonuses story XP as he spills his guts and goes on to make something with the rest of his life. If you just kill him "cuz he's the enemy dur!" you get nada except CR XP. It's a super common trope ESPECIALLY since it was made known there was a caster among their group that fled. It should have one of the very first things these "good" characters should have looked for.

Milo33 |

I don't want to get into a conversation about the merits of tabletop, this is a forum on alignment, not a place for you to insinuate you are a better roleplayer than I am. Can a party investigate further? Yes. It might even be a fun and rewarding time. Is a chaotic good character REQUIRED to investigate further? I say no. Banditry and highwaymen are a common occurrence in pathfinder, and you only have so much time in the world.

Milo33 |

I'm pretty sure the word always isn't in there. Besides these guys haven't wronged the cavalier personally, they tried to murder him and his friends. They are a menace to all travelers, not just the cavalier. A cavalier must be just at all times to, and I believe that summary execution of attempted murders falls under a chaotic good characters outlook of justice.

Buri |

Order of the Sword
Cavaliers who join the order of the sword dedicate their lives to the code of chivalry, living a life of honor, valor, and fairness. Cavaliers of this order tend to swear service to a lord or a lady. Of all the orders, the order of the sword is perhaps the broadest in terms of its focus and ideals.Edicts: The cavalier must show courage in the face of danger, mercy to those who have wronged him, and charity to the poor and the meek. He must be just and honorable at all times and in all things. He must defend his honor and, above all else, the honor of those he serves.
1wrong noun \ˈrȯŋ\
Definition of WRONG
1
a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause
b : a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another; especially : tort
2
: something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law
3
: the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as
a : the state of being mistaken or incorrect
b : the state of being guilty
Pretty sure someone trying to kill you falls under all those definitions.

Milo33 |

Once again, I have to say I see a distinction between someone who attempted to murder the cavalier out of a personal vendetta and someone who lays in wait in the road, killing all who pass and taking their stuff. Letting them go would certainly be UNJUST, as more innocents will suffer for it. Once we concede that these criminals can't be allowed free, it's simply a question of how to deal with them. A chaotic good character doesn't really see the merit of trying someone when they know their guilty.

Finlanderboy |

Once again, I have to say I see a distinction between someone who attempted to murder the cavalier out of a personal vendetta and someone who lays in wait in the road, killing all who pass and taking their stuff. Letting them go would certainly be UNJUST, as more innocents will suffer for it. Once we concede that these criminals can't be allowed free, it's simply a question of how to deal with them. A chaotic good character doesn't really see the merit of trying someone when they know their guilty.
I agree with you Milo that CG is within his alignment. But the cavalaier is part of an order that has it's own rules Buri is refering to that the PC is breaking.

Buri |

No one mentioned letting them go. The solution the cavalier outright rejected was taking them to a nearby town and turning them into a magistrate going so far as to beat his friend and ally to unconsciousness in order to carry out his self imposed death sentence.
Good means respecting life in PF. Not just the lives of good people or the lives of innocents. Life in general. If he wanted to do that he should have been a neutral character at best. Basically, he doesn't want alignment restrictions.
From Ultimate Campaign
Core Concepts: Benevolence, charity, freedom, joy, kindness, mercy, warmth
What he did there was none of those.

MrSin |

The edict to the order of the sword is almost lockstep with the LG alignment. No evil alignment could keep that edict. Neutrals would struggle with it hard. Killing someone, even a murderer, who has given you no cause to do so is evil no matter what.
I disagree with most of that, but I also think that alignment isn't part of any of the problems of the table. More so party cohesion and problem solving. Might want to talk about that.

Milo33 |

Well I guess that's where things break down. It looks to me like people are trying to find a way to use the rules to punish a character for being a dick. If a GM want's to slap down a player for being a dick he should. But he should say exactly why he's doing it, not pretend it has something to do with the rules.

Buri |

I won't necessarily disagree with party cohesion issues. But, as long as it can be kept in the spirit of good roleplay I see no reason why two PCs can't go to fisticuffs over an issue if their characters legitimately would do. Two good characters dueling over whether kill unconscious prisoners actually seems legit to me. That said, a lack of player cooperation could super easily lead to this as well.
As far as the LG comparison:
Edicts: The cavalier must show courage in the face of danger, mercy to those who have wronged him, and charity to the poor and the meek. He must be just and honorable at all times and in all things. He must defend his honor and, above all else, the honor of those he serves.
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
They differ in any significant way how? The whole help the meek and poor is directly opposite of evil alignments and I have a hard time seeing a neutral character actively looking to help them too.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.