Evil Acts, Good Acts

[Lludd]

I hear and see all the time, "That is an evil act. I'll have to put mark on your chronicle sheet that you did ______. You are in danger of changing alignment to evil."

What about all the Good acts/spells/etc.? So if a neutral cleric casts an animate dead spell or uses the command undead channel feat. You start slipping towards evil? Does the fact that the cleric spams heals every module make him/her slip towards good? If so, my neutral characters better stop that.

Healing spells are inherently good acts right? Just because a pathfinder makes a deal with an evil outsider, animates a corpse, or intimidates a "good" NPC with violence. That would make them evil. Even though said character just saved a poor village from a plague/monsters/corruption last week. He/she will be evil now.

I think every module is created ,unintentionally , with the idea that "the end justifies the means." Why else hire adventurers (aka mercenaries) to do the job? Pathfinders are hired guns. Simple as that. Is that evil? And now boons let us play monsters now? Slippery slope to evil.

What about neutral rangers and druids that believe in survival of the fittest? Will they get an evil mark because they believe that the poor village should be able to hold their own? Standing by and doing nothing to save it.

So I say give me an evil mark. I will cast a CLW spell in a minute and be neutral again.

[Zauron13]

As far as I know, healing does not have the good descriptior.
But that is a moot point. I believe animate dead and other "evil" spells do not affect your alignment unless you use them in evil ways (I need some one with search fu to verify). Case in point, infernal healing.
Should GMs mark good and evil actions? Yeah, probably. And every GM has a different thought on what is evil.

Lets not open the debate again on what is evil/Good/chaotic/lawful.

[Mystic Lemur]

Evil is tracked because evil is (generally) the most disruptive to any given play session, and Evil is the only alignment that can get you removed from play. It's not "fair", but it is efficient.

Follow the "Don't be a Jerk" rule. Enforce the "Don't be a Jerk" rule. Everything else will fall into place.

[Lludd]

This wasn't meant to be a good evil debate. Just that evil is tracked and good isn't. Mystic said it better than I.

I think if it so easy to earn an evil mark. It should be just as easy for a good mark to be earned. We do "good" all the time. By tracking it just gives us something else to police. And that is not good.

Before anyone says it. Paladins have special rules... yadda yadda.

[Jiggy]

If a player finds it "easy" to earn an evil mark, then either the player or the GM is more sadistic than they realize.

[SCPRedMage]

Well, let's think about it this way.

A character begins his career as neutral good. Because he murders an innocent or two, a GM shifts his alignment to true neutral.

Said player takes this as a pretty clear sign he needs to clean up his act, and begins to go out of his way to be good; helps out every innocent NPC he can, uses resources to heal sick/injured townspeople, etc. He does this every session for, oh, let's say three full levels.

The way we handle this now, how likely is it that said character will ever be shifted back to good, forever leaving this character one uptight GM and questionable act away from being shifted to evil?

If the utter lack of mechanical consequences makes you uninterested, how about a cleric of Asmodeus who constant performs good acts, while avoiding evil acts? Shouldn't that character shift away from his diety's alignment, forcing an atonement so that he can keep his powers?

[Lludd]

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pp5x?We-NEED-a-change-in-Andoran-Leadership

This is a post on the Andoran message board. Funny, first post is complaining about his last mission was to commit murder to cover up his faction leaders infidelity. lol. And we are not allowed to play evil.

[Akerlof]

For starters, cure spells are Conjuration (healing), they're not aligned. If your deity sees fit for you to channel positive energy, using that energy to heal folks is generally going to be part of their plan.

Secondly, casting spells with the "Evil" descriptor is not an evil act unless it's done for an evil purpose or violates a tenet of the faith. So using the Command Undead feat or casting Animate Dead isn't an alignment infraction unless you're murdering a stranger (or non-stranger) simply to get a body to animate, or you're a cleric of Pharasma. Also, your GM should give you clear warning that what you're doing would be considered an alignment infraction and give you a chance to change your mind. There shouldn't be any ex post facto "oh, by the way, that was an alignment infraction" type infractions.

Finally, I think people mark down evil acts rather than good acts for a couple reason. First, everybody notices an evil act. It's wrong, it's doing something that we wouldn't do in the real world. That stands out a whole lot more than doing something heroic, and we often think of things as cool or heroic or awesome rather than thinking of them as "good." Also, as a GM, I don't always know what your character's alignment and deity are, but I DO know that your alignment cannot be evil. So I'm going to notice if you do something evil, because that's certain to be out of bounds. I don't know if you're a neutral follower of an evil or deity, (and if I do, sometimes I forget in the middle of all the hubbub,) so those good acts you commit don't jump out as being just as damaging to your character as the evil acts do. Furthermore, if you're following a neutral or good deity, shifting your alignment to good doesn't matter because it won't move you more than 1 step away from your deity's alignment. Not every GM understands all the tenets of all the deities' faiths: I don't have the "Faiths of..." books and only know about Pharasma's hatred of undead because of conversations with someone who had a cleric devoted to her. I know hardly anything or Erastil, so I have no idea if killing that fluffy bunny and cooking it would be good or bad in his eyes, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you're trying to shift your alignment to good, you should let your GM know before the game so he's aware and keeping an eye out.

Neutral isn't always about balancing good an evil. It can also be about not really caring that much.

PRD wrote:

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.

Also, the neutral alignments are fine with helping others, it's just not a core belief that they should go out of their way to help others:

PRD again wrote:

Lawful Neutral: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

Neutral: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.

Chaotic Neutral: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it.

Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.

Ultimate Campaign has some good additional information on the alignments as well.

[thistledown]

I've run into this already. I have a character that started as chaotic neutral, and is moving towards chaotic good. I've talked with GM's about it before games, and had them mark my sheet accordingly if they felt I qualified.

Unfortunately, I've had to give her more GM credit recently than I'd like, so I'm having a hard time with the process.

[Todd Morgan]

In my mind, you need to do more nice things to make you good than it would take evil deeds to make you evil. Murder 3 people in cold blood as a good character may take you down to neutral, but maybe it takes saving the lives of 6, 9 or 12 people to bring you back up. Maybe more.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

If someone came to me saying they wanted to roleplay being good as a way to roleplay changing their alignment to something good, I'd put a "good" mark on their chronicle sheet if I felt it was warranted by their character's actions.

And if they had several "good" marks, I'd sign off on a free alignment shift upwards.

[pauljathome]

I always thought that alignment was more or less at the discretion of the player anyway. Within reason.

Is alignment actually one of the things that I'm not supposed to change?

Oops.

I've changed alignment on at least one character (I think it is more than one but I am only sure about one) because I realized that they'd drifted from where they started. The one that I am sure about went from LN to N (tending towards Good)

Never asked a GM. Didn't think I needed to. Definitely don't want to as I understand those characters far more than a GM would,

NOTE : I am NOT talking about just arm waving away the impact of an evil act. One of my characters did <redacted> in <redacted> and happily paid for an atonement spell afterwards. I'm talking about small organic change in a character

[Sitri]

pauljathome wrote:

I always thought that alignment was more or less at the discretion of the player anyway. Within reason.

Is alignment actually one of the things that I'm not supposed to change?

Oops.

I've changed alignment on at least one character (I think it is more than one but I am only sure about one) because I realized that they'd drifted from where they started. The one that I am sure about went from LN to N (tending towards Good)

Never asked a GM. Didn't think I needed to. Definitely don't want to as I understand those characters far more than a GM would,

NOTE : I am NOT talking about just arm waving away the impact of an evil act. One of my characters did <redacted> in <redacted> and happily paid for an atonement spell afterwards. I'm talking about small organic change in a character

I changed my alignment on a character from TN to CN as well.

Spoiler:

I wanted to start using drugs for stat bumps and fluff that he imports them as a day job before I realized that just because Harlot Sweets are found under Poisoner's Miscellany does not mean they count as the poisons marked as legal on additional resources. I have still mentally committed to the idea that he imports, but I have been asked once in 11 levels "What do you do for a day job?" so no one really even knows but me.

I tried to dig around the rules and forums for how to do it and basically what I came up with was a lot of people saying don't cheese the good-evil system to avoid paying for atonement. No one really seemed to care about the Law-Chaos line.

[Tempest_Knight]

The Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play defines killing as a Evil action.

We have Mike's position/ruling that an Evil action is an Evil action regardless of 'greater good' arguments... (I'll have to dig up the thread... it was on torture specifically)

Given those two considerations almost every character in PFS play is redefined and forced into Alignment Shift to Evil and retired... I know my Gunslinger has killed people, and animals, and monsters, and...

[BigNorseWolf]

Tempest_Knight wrote:

The Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play defines killing as a Evil action.

Citation needed.

[Fromper]

pauljathome wrote:

I always thought that alignment was more or less at the discretion of the player anyway. Within reason.

Is alignment actually one of the things that I'm not supposed to change?

Oops.

I've changed alignment on at least one character (I think it is more than one but I am only sure about one) because I realized that they'd drifted from where they started. The one that I am sure about went from LN to N (tending towards Good)

Never asked a GM. Didn't think I needed to. Definitely don't want to as I understand those characters far more than a GM would,

NOTE : I am NOT talking about just arm waving away the impact of an evil act. One of my characters did <redacted> in <redacted> and happily paid for an atonement spell afterwards. I'm talking about small organic change in a character

Yeah, I was actually going to ask about this.

My first PC started as CN and realized I wasn't playing him as chaotic as I probably should, so I shifted him to true neutral.

For a later PC, I intentionally pre-planned an alignment shift from LN to LG for whenever it seemed like it would make sense, and I have since made that shift based on a particular scenario I played him in.

Was I supposed to consult a GM and have them initial a chronicle to confirm those changes when they happened?

[Netopalis]

I've warned players about Lawful-Chaotic shifts before if they were an alignment-dependent class (Paladin, Cleric, Inquisitor, etc.) Absent those classes, however, alignment is a player's choice to describe a character, and we're not going to force someone to relook at how they play their character unless there is an external motivation, like an angry deity.

[Tempest_Knight]

Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play; p.36; Alignment Infractions wrote:

Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells

with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.)
while following specific orders from their faction or the
Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions.
These are cases where karma applies to those making
the orders, not their tools. However, “that’s just what my
character would do” is not a defense for behaving like a jerk.

Correction... Potentially Evil...

[FanaticRat]

I have a character listed as neutral even though I tend to play him neutral good, just to avoid any potential arguments with people.

[ElyasRavenwood]

Well I am sure it has been said upthread, one of the main reasons no evil alignments are allowed in PFS, is that more often then not, evil alignments= jerkish behavior both by the character and the player.

[catron1601]

The only time I've marked an evil action on a chronicle sheet was for a paladin that committed an evil act and didn't want to pay for an atonement. He thought he could get away with no one knowing. So when he sat back down at my table and tried to use a paladin feat, I checked his sheet. Still hadn't paid the atonement cost.

I think it speaks of the GM being to much of a jerk to mark everyone's sheet if they commit an evil act. I believe that it should only be recorded if it will directly impact spells/feats of the character. That's how the rest of the GMs down here have interpreted that rule.

[Lucerne Hammer]

So in overview, say I'm playing a NG silver crusade Cleric. Get together at game store for one off adventure. Before heading out on said adventure take out my shining wayfinder and determine in vague terms that one of my companions has Imp familiar who must have written down LN in his character sheet, and another character gives off a strong evil aura as they are a cleric of evil God who wrote down neutral on character sheet.
Now, as far as I can guess, these two intend upon raising undead, murder, pilaging and ect. Their way across the countryside.
What are my options?
Assuming remnants of faith and loyalty to Crusade are important to character.
Could travel with them, maybe not heal them, verbally rebuke them every time they punch and old lady or steal from a blind beggar?
Or....as I would be more apt to consider, just stay in the tavern and drink beer, secretly hoping that karma grants them a quick death.
Seems to me they are dominating the table under the guise of not being quite evil,
But at the end of the day I'll be the one violating the Dont be a Jerk clause.
Rules say I'm supposed to cooperate.

[wraithstrike]

I would talk to the GM and the VC. You are not required to heal anyone, but they are also breaking the "don't be a jerk rule". If nobody is going to do anything about their actions then you can not heal them and be correct in character or try to find another group to game with.

[Lucerne Hammer]

Just looking for guidelines for what is okay. If I channel positive every time I am around undead, then do it when they call up "friendly" undead it's speculated that is akin to PvP.
Like I said, more passive aggressively staying in town more my style.

[BigNorseWolf]

Their alignments should be slipping if they're beating up old ladies for money.

You can refuse to heal them. As a player I would at least throw a stabalize on them if they're dying and prop them up somewhere inconspicuous so the monsters don't eat them to avoid TOO many bad feelings.

That and preaching is about as far as you can go.

[Nefreet]

Are these hypotheticals? Or actual experiences?

If they're hypothetical, stop right there. It's just fuel for an internet fire.

If they're experiential, then talk to either the GM or VO.

[Lucerne Hammer]

A little of both actually. Will be an upcoming issue the lawful neutral wizard is discussing getting and imp as his familiar in a couple of levels add another player is discussing building a chaotic neutral cleric of an evil God because the chaotic evil gods have the best creatures for summoning.
So at this point I'm just being proactive or at least that's how I'm seeing it.

[Auke Teeninga]

Using necromancy to raise a thread that was dead for years is evil indeed.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Lucerne Hammer wrote:

A little of both actually. Will be an upcoming issue the lawful neutral wizard is discussing getting and imp as his familiar in a couple of levels add another player is discussing building a chaotic neutral cleric of an evil God because the chaotic evil gods have the best creatures for summoning.

So at this point I'm just being proactive or at least that's how I'm seeing it.

Everyone should try to cooperate, but on the same token sometimes it is ok to voice objections to the actions others take.

For example, you are could refuse to heal any summoned creatures or count them as allies for your beneficial spells. Not healing players is something I would carefully consider, and just for the record, when you channel energy to heal your party you don't damage undead in any case.

If if bothers you that much, talk to the other players and the GM. Maybe playing with other PFS groups is more fun for you.

And if you really want to push the passive agressive angle, explain that using your scroll of breath of life on the wizard with the evil familiar, or on the cleric of the evil god... is not a top priority in combat. (What you actually do once someone drops dead is another matter entirely).

[RoshVagari]

Will you be so high and mighty when other people's characters don't come to your aid when you're getting your shiny wayfinder crammed up your prayer hole? You don't have to heal them, and they don't have to cover you.

Is your conviction to your character strong enough to stay true when you're paying for the body recovery cost along with the raise dead and restorations because no one wanted to haul your preachy carcass back at the end of the scenario?

Do you also want to get a reputation as a player who lords your character concept over other players' concepts so that other players don't want to play with you?

"Don't be a jerk" has many facets, which is also why "Cooperate" is a thing. You'll find relaxing and kicking back with your fellow gamers and letting everyone play what they want to play a much more fun and rewarding experience than being the morality police in a really fancy game of make believe.

[Lucerne Hammer]

That's kind of my point isn't it?

Am I playing a character most people choose not to travel with or are the borderline evil characters less desirable to travel with?

That said, it would be entertaining to watch the CNE cleric argue all day with the LNE wizard.

Both of these players are friends of mine, but with three tables every Friday at local game store, they are not in the least restricted, and I can opt out for a table group more to my liking. Frankly the wizard is fine until he enslaves a pet devil.

[BigNorseWolf]

Lucerne Hammer wrote:

That's kind of my point isn't it?

Am I playing a character most people choose not to travel with or are the borderline evil characters less desirable to travel with?

That said, it would be entertaining to watch the CNE cleric argue all day with the LNE wizard.

Both of these players are friends of mine, but with three tables every Friday at local game store, they are not in the least restricted, and I can opt out for a table group more to my liking.

You're not going to fall for it, and its a good role playing opportunity if you can handle it.

[Kyrie Ebonblade,]

I've seen similar behavior based on factions..
I watched two veteran players demand proof of another players halfling PC was in fact a 'free halfing'. One of the reasons I revived my halfling clan of cut throats

The big rule for me as a GM..don't be a jerk.

Alignment issues might be a cause...
Players demanding a 'certain' item or play style from a certain class.
The list goes on..

Simpler put.. don't be a jerk If you don't feel you would 'fit' with a party.. do you like you do and pick a table you. You do that... you do good by me as a GM and I'll welcome you at my table every time.

[Ascalaphus]

*Hefts can of gasoline for the Internet fire, hesitates*

So just having an imp familiar or being a cleric of an evil deity alone isn't an evil act yet. It's a bit early to start acting out against your party just because you suspect they might go do things. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty (or at least until given an opportunity to commit crimes)?

[Lucerne Hammer]

So your suggestion is play along, wait for one of them to execute people who have surrendered as he has with the last two chars I have seen him play. If this is witnessed by my character then move from cooperate on to other duty as pathfinder, which is report, in character to local authorities and whichever npc pathfinder we happen to be assigned to.
Basically role-with-it?

That sounds more jerky than choosing another table and having them enjoy some well deserved murder-hoboing.

[BigNorseWolf]

Reporting your teammates to the local authorities is pretty much the opposite of cooperating.

As a DM i hold the party to a you kill it you keep it rule. The NPC that the warpriest of ragathiel takes out can go ahead and murderhobo his prisoners, while the saranite can keep theirs for redemption attempts. On characters that prefer to charm mooks, I keep spare wayfinders and forge field commissions to hand out.

[Lucerne Hammer]

So we basically agree not a good option, and frankly not one that I or they would enjoy.

[Ascalaphus]

Lucerne Hammer wrote:

So your suggestion is play along, wait for one of them to execute people who have surrendered as he has with the last two chars I have seen him play. If this is witnessed by my character then move from cooperate on to other duty as pathfinder, which is report, in character to local authorities and whichever npc pathfinder we happen to be assigned to.

Basically role-with-it?

That sounds more jerky than choosing another table and having them enjoy some well deserved murder-hoboing.

If you know this person has a records of executing prisoners, you can do stuff like say beforehand "I'm not okay with that, please don't do it". And yeah, even if you only have circumstantial reason to expect it, you can talk about it.

If all you have is "hey, he pings as evil, but that might just be his deity", it's a bit early to begin with the punishments for stuff that hasn't happened yet.

And for the record: I do play a cleric of Asmodeus, who will be getting an imp soon. But he's never animated the dead, because that's not what lawyers do. Lawyers impound enemies' weapons (pilfering hand), serve restraining orders (hold person) and incite bad guys to turn on each other (murderous command). I don't think the character has ever actually committed an evil act; he's strongly Lawful Neutral, believing in the full majesty of the Prince of Law (not, as some people obsess about, Darkness).

[BigNorseWolf]

Exchange member: cast murderous command. Throw 25 GP to the enemy for a hit. Get a receipt.

[Lucerne Hammer]

Wasn't PFS but his character executed four of my prisoners right after they surrendered to me about a year ago. Then we had a loud in character discussion about murdering prisoners which he thought was hilarious.
So with no way to back it up that would basically leave me stop or I'll say stop again as my recourse.

Sometimes it's best not to feed your murder hobos after midnight.

[pauljathome]

Lucerne Hammer wrote:

Wasn't PFS but his character executed four of my prisoners right after they surrendered to me about a year ago. Then we had a loud in character discussion about murdering prisoners which he thought was hilarious.

So with no way to back it up that would basically leave me stop or I'll say stop again as my recourse.

Sometimes it's best not to feed your murder hobos after midnight.

I'd try to discuss it with the player before the game and see if that helps. Explain to him that you'd REALLY prefer for him to not do that and to pretty pretty please try and rein in that behaviour to the extent possible.

If that doesn't work, to the extent possible play at different tables. Your gaming styles are incompatible

[BigNorseWolf]

This is why my NPCs surrender to the paladin or the cleric of abadar. And get a receipt.

If you lick it , it's yours, and the other players can't touch it.

[nosig]

Clearly Lucerne Hammer has a history with the other player/players and wishes the other player/players would change their play style.

Wanting to do this (force this change in play style) "in character" is not a good idea, and is likely to spill into a conflict with the fall-out effecting everyone at the table - which is going to be 3+ additional players impacted (one of whom has taken the time to run this game). It is most likely going to sour the event for everyone at the table...

Players need to resolve this sort of problem away from the gaming table. If they can't... they shouldn't be at the table together. Otherwise we are trying to force someone else to "play right" - a way other than the way they want to - and trying to force that change in play style with an in game grenade. There is likely to be "collateral damage"...

[Bob's Feet]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

This is why my NPCs surrender to the paladin or the cleric of abadar. And get a receipt.

bah - been in games where the pally didn't except surrenders from "Evil Creatures"...

"Does he ping as evil? Then I hit it again, until it stops pinging as evil..." yeah, with the change in pronoun. "he" before checking, "it" after evil was detected

[nosig]

It might be a bit theoretically thin, but as a GM I'm fine with glossing over how the party interacts "off-stage". We often do this just to keep the main action on the rails. I have enough trouble finishing scenarios on time without worrying about things like "What did we do with the prisoners we captured?" It is quite possible that thru "glossing over how the party gets rid of prisoners" a lot of hard feelings and un-productive game time is avoided. (this is a good thing). It would mean that three (or more) players will assume that the party handled the "prisoner disposal" the way they each individually wanted too -

Player A: "We killed 'em dead, like they deserve. And I enjoyed it..."

Player B: "Turned the evil creatures in for a suitable reward. The gold got rolled into the award at the end of the game..."

Player C: "We enrolled them in the Sarenrae twelve-step program of redemption and restitution. So that they can become a useful member of society..."

and they all move on to their next game - happy to have resolved this issue "correctly".

[Ascalaphus]

"You guys can turn them over to the guards, and they'll get what they deserve. This is a well-run country, they won't escape punishment."

And with that the party gets rid of a load of prisoners they didn't want to drag along and keep eyes on all the time.

[Buba Casanunda]

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

"You guys can turn them over to the guards, and they'll get what they deserve. This is a well-run country, they won't escape punishment."

And with that the party gets rid of a load of prisoners they didn't want to drag along and keep eyes on all the time.

depends.

My Cayden cleric might/would have problems with this - hate seeing Mooks getting turned in, often to be put into bondage (slavery).

And sometimes it means we get an exchange something like the following:

PC: "So Mook, we meet again!"
Mook #417: "Yeah, if'n I'd knowed it was yous, I might not've takkan dis job".
PC: "and how's the wife? and the little mooks? three isn't it?"
Mook #417: "same oh-same oh, off visitin' her mum again in Durma, and the lil ones is growin' like weeds..."
PC: glancing at the other mooks - stablized and waiting their turn at interrogation "So, does the local Thugs Union have ok Medical benefits? Looks like you guys will need it. Wait, you're Rent-A-Thug aren't you?"
Mook #417: "Not w'at it used ta be, w'at wit da cut backs and all. Had to switch over to Thugs-are-Us."
PC: "Tell ya what Mook, I'll pop for a couple charges off my happy stick when we're done here..."
Mook #417: "Hay, you're all ri't! T'anks!"
PC: "No problem! Least I can do. Now, about the guy who hired you..."

[Michael Hallet]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

This is why my NPCs surrender to the paladin or the cleric of abadar. And get a receipt.

If you lick it , it's yours, and the other players can't touch it.

You know, I really disagree with this dynamic (and I've seen it at several tables) that as soon as one PC offers or accepts surrender, the other PCs are bound by that player's decision.

There is actually one time I said screw that and killed the prisoners anyways, knowing full well that I'd get a did evil note on my chronicle.

Perils of the Pirate Pact (#17):

I was playing my CN undine pirate. We had the first combat encounter in hand with the boarding party and they surrendered. Looking to Lady Riverbane, it was clear she was not wanting to show mercy and I was trying to get on her good side, showing her that I belonged and was capable. So being an ends justify the means type PC, I decided to demonstrate my ruthlessness by slaying all of the prisoners.

You know what? Despite the misgivings of the other players, my plan worked. By the end of the adventure, when the ruse was revealed, Lady Riverbane was convinced I was ready to join her side against the Pathfinders (a natural 20 on the bluff check helped too.) She didn't realize I was planning to betray her all along until she tried to cast a spell at the other PCs while I was standing next to her and suddenly had my rapier thrust through her back. She never got a chance to try again as my attack on my next turn dropped her. The other pirates quickly fled, leaving me to claim my "prize."

So I pretty much have zero regrets about the whole thing and the evil mark on my chronicle.

[BigNorseWolf]

Michael Hallet wrote:

You know, I really disagree with this dynamic (and I've seen it at several tables) that as soon as one PC offers or accepts surrender, the other PCs are bound by that player's decision.

There is actually one time I said screw that and killed the prisoners anyways, knowing full well that I'd get a did evil note on my chronicle.

** spoiler omitted **

Well, whats the other option? PCs can't accept a surrender unless they unanimously agree to take it? Because there's nothing the paladin can do to stop Muderhoboicus from ganking his restrained prisoners.