|
| 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.
|
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.
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.
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.
This is why I said our world is one such that the boundaries of what is really good and evil is gray. These boundaries are clearly defined in Pathfinder.
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.
<@> <@> nibbles on the popcorn.
| 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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
Then you don't follow the alignment laid out in the CRB. You're also ignoring a core feature of the cavalier's character which he is bound to always show mercy to those who have wronged him.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It seems odd to me that a member of the order of the sword can execute a murderer so long as they never tried to murder him.
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.
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.
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.
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.