|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it also depends just how much a threat these bandits were, if the rogue truly believed they would be free from jail quickly and come after him/the party with intent to kill and that they had a good chance of hurting or even killing him and his companions should they get the drop on them... he is absolutely justified in killing them per his alignment.
If on the other hand they had defeated the bandits easily, they were minor foes who realistically couldn't pose any threat to the party and could at best cause a small inconvenience should they get out of jail and make trouble... then killing them all is a huge overreaction and certainly a much stronger slide towards evil as he clearly values others lives as less than his minor comfort.
For those (implausibly) arguing that murder itself is not evil, I'll just point out that it is one of the FEW actual acts LISTED as evil in the rules.
As if that will matter to those making that argument.
Then don't misrepresent my arguments in such a way that it seems clear that you did not understand them.Not agreeing does not equal not understanding.Sadurian, you posted a comment where you implied that I was saying that ten good acts were required to balance out one evil act. I did not say what you implied I said.
So either you misunderstood, or you deliberately misrepresented my argument.
I was being generous in stating you misunderstood. Perhaps I was wrong.
Okay, for the record.
You posted that you didn't think one act was enough to balance another. I posted that, whilst I appreciated that you could do what you liked in your own gameworld, I disagreed and used the x10/x1 as an illustration of why I disagreed. There doesn't seem to be anything my post to suggest that I actually though you had put numbers to the balance, and I doubt any reasonable person would think that was the case.
Your response was unnecessarily snarky and patronising, using the phrase 'you aren't listening', even though what you then wrote that you thought I wasn't listening to was not said in your previous posts.
I therefore suspect that you are using the illustration as a strawman argument to try to cover your patronising post, hoping that it will deflect away from your snarkiness. Your return to snark in the quoted post reinforces this suspicion.
To reiterate once and finally: I understand what you were saying. I do not agree with what you are saying. My opinion does not stop you using your way of doing things in your own gameworld, but I wouldn't use it in mine.
|
|
Again, we end with your chaotic neutral rogue maintaining his alignment from this individual encounter. Until he starts killing without good reason, he doesn't slide into evil.
Agreed, his reasons are all important. Killing in what he truly believes is the future defence of his life is a totally different act than killing because it makes his life a tiny bit easier, or killing 'for the lolz'.
Sadurian, just a word of advice. If you intend to challenge any statements of mine in the future, don't misstate my arguments and we'll be fine.
All I know is the for the greater good argument is BS. Anything and everything can be justified with it. For example to save humanity we have to get rid of the jews and degenerates. It's for the "greater good".
Also whenever anyone claims that something is "for the children" it's BS... but that's beside the point. :p
Hey, my invoking Godwin with the aeons doesn't mean the original Law no longer applies. Bad goblin! BAD goblin!
All I know is the for the greater good argument is BS. Anything and everything can be justified with it. For example to save humanity we have to get rid of the jews and degenerates. It's for the "greater good".
Also whenever anyone claims that something is "for the children" it's BS... but that's beside the point. :p
Do you agree that random people should be locked away from society or stopped and made to pay large sums of money for no return? I hope not.
I assume, however, that you would be okay with legal imprisonment and legal fines? The reason they are done is as a punishment to discourage criminal behaviour.
In other words, they are unsavoury acts performed for the greater good.
You cannot blanket anything entirely.
Well, that certainly escalated. Even invoked godwin's law.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sadurian, just a word of advice. If you intend to challenge any statements of mine in the future, don't misstate my arguments and we'll be fine.
A word back to you. Try to avoid the snark and patronising language. Which you have wandered back to once more.
Just remember that other people have different ways of looking at things and their challenging of your ideas and preconceptions does not make them open for childish retorts.
An argument or discussion is the bouncing and challenging of ideas, not being insulting. This board has always appeared to be free of the sort of discussion that has participants sniping at each other, I hope that this is last one I see for a while.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those (implausibly) arguing that murder itself is not evil, I'll just point out that it is one of the FEW actual acts LISTED as evil in the rules.
As if that will matter to those making that argument.
Interestingly the chapter on alignment has this to say about Neutrally aligned characters.
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.
Are the bandits innocent? Certainly not. They're at the least thugs and robbers, presumably if they attacked the party also potentially killers and murderers as well. If they will pose a realistic threat to the rogue later on, it doesn't seem to indicate that killing them is outside his alignment. (Note: For clarity, that quote is from the 'Good vs Evil' section, not 'Lawful vs Chaotic'.)
Do you agree that random people should be locked away from society or stopped and made to pay large sums of money for no return? I hope not.
I assume, however, that you would be okay with legal imprisonment and legal fines? The reason they are done is as a punishment to discourage criminal behaviour.
In other words, they are unsavoury acts performed for the greater good.
You cannot blanket anything entirely.
May be necessary. Doesn't make it good though. I'm of the seemingly contradictory opinion that something can be both BS and justifiable.
Sadurian, just a word of advice. If you intend to challenge any statements of mine in the future, don't misstate my arguments and we'll be fine.A word back to you. Try to avoid the snark and patronising language. Which you have wandered back to once more.
Just remember that other people have different ways of looking at things and their challenging of your ideas and preconceptions does not make them open for childish retorts.
An argument or discussion is the bouncing and challenging of ideas, not being insulting. This board has always appeared to be free of the sort of discussion that has participants sniping at each other, I hope that this is last one I see for a while.
I see you've chosen to ignore the advice. Oh well. I tried.
Some people refuse to make active efforts to understand other people, Adamantine Dragon. It's not your fault. EDIT: Well, in the time it took me to write a reply, that part of the discussion went from uncivil to something else. :/
What is the rogue's intelligence score? Is the character capable of the introspection required to know that what he's doing is inherently evil*?
(*And not very smart, since he could have picked their brains for information or bargained with them for whatever they might know, maybe even offer them jobs as part of "reforming" them under the good party.)
If he has a lower Intelligence, then this act would probably fall towards a more "I'm just being pragmatic" approach, even if it's not "correct."
If he has a higher Intelligence, and his character would have thought it through more, then it was either an act of boredom (lack of respect for life) or paranoia. In either case, it isn't justified.
Of course, as others have stated, I wouldn't swing the alignment straight away. It might have been on the whim of the player, but ultimately you need to get the player to really consider the circumstances and explain themselves. If the answer is shallow, treat it accordingly. If the answer is deeper, then you probably will have something more to work with.
Killing, in and of itself, is evil. You are denying other people the right to live for reasons that essentially have to do with yourself - your own well-being. This is the foundation.
That being said, sometimes the circumstances are drastic enough to push it into neutral, if not good, territory. Killing in self-defense is generally neutral - your life is as valuable as any other. Killing in revenge for close ones may be considered neutral too, depending on the cultural factors. Killing someone who may endanger many others, i.e. a vicious bandit, if no other option is readily available, may well be good.
The other part - lying - is imo not evil, as it was probably done to protect oneself and not to harm another.
So what was the situation here? We were told the people killed were thugs. While hardly saintly people, generally they do not merit killing out of hand. However, depending on the rogue´s background and experience, it might be more or less acceptable - i.e. if they were an enemy group that wars with his own.
In general, I am inclined to think this was an evil act, although possibly not sufficient to merit an alignment shift. Alignment should shift due to patterns, not single actions. If that rogue kills people he has no particular grievances against and are not a threat to him, that definitely means evil alignment.
Killing, in and of itself, is evil. You are denying other people the right to live for reasons that essentially have to do with yourself - your own well-being. This is the foundation.
Well that's an opinion.
Killing, in and of itself, is evil. You are denying other people the right to live for reasons that essentially have to do with yourself - your own well-being. This is the foundation.Well that's an opinion.
When "killing is an evil act" (in the context, especially, of murdering helpless prisoners) is dismissed as "an opinion", then it's pretty much clear that EVERYTHING is "just an opinion" no matter what the rules say. (Because, as has been noted, "murder" is noted in the rules as an evil act.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When "killing is an evil act" (in the context, especially, of murdering helpless prisoners) is dismissed as "an opinion", then it's pretty much clear that EVERYTHING is "just an opinion" no matter what the rules say. (Because, as has been noted, "murder" is noted in the rules as an evil act.)Killing, in and of itself, is evil. You are denying other people the right to live for reasons that essentially have to do with yourself - your own well-being. This is the foundation.Well that's an opinion.
Yes, killing is an evil act, without context, is an opinion. Murder and killing have two different meanings, both in definition and colloquial.
I would go so far as to say that in fact all killing is evil. Even the killing of non-sentient species. Gotta eat though. To live is to kill. Hell the very act of breathing kills. Life is all about compromise and balance not abstract concepts that are physically impossible. Sure you can make excuses about non-sapient life not having a soul or whatever but it's a rather arbitrary line people draw so they can sleep at night. A line that will become ever more blurred if we start crossing humans with other species. But I'm just ranting now. :)
1) Is the act of "finishing off" disabled enemies an act that falls within the very gray purview of Chaotic Neutral, or does this press toward evil?
Intent matters here. If it's being done because leaving them alive is some kind of risk, you're talking closer to a neutral act. If it's being done because the killer simply wants them dead, you're talking evil.
2) If it presses toward evil, by how much? All the way to Chaotic Evil? Half way?
One action can't define a person's alignment. You have to go on trends over time. Is this person doing a lot of this kind of thing, or is this a one-off? How are their other actions affecting the balance?
If this is the second time they've done this recently, without any opposing (i.e. good) actions to bring it back into a neutral balance, it might be worth prodding them to let them know they're looking at an alignment change in the future if they keep this trend up.
3) How do you handle this sort of thing in game?
See 2) :)
Another thing to bear in mind is you're not talking nine alignments, but two axes (yikes, I even had to Google to see if that was the correct plural form of axis). Focus on the Lawful/Chaotic separately to the Good/Evil to simplify things. In this case, we're talking the Good/Evil axis (although with more context it could be possible the Lawful/Chaotic axis comes into play too, but I think that's outside of the specific example.)
tl;dr: What they did was most likely an Evil act, but one act amongst many shouldn't change alignment (well, unless it's a really, really *big* act, of course.)
Yes, killing is an evil act, without context, is an opinion. Murder and killing have two different meanings, both in definition and colloquial.When "killing is an evil act" (in the context, especially, of murdering helpless prisoners) is dismissed as "an opinion", then it's pretty much clear that EVERYTHING is "just an opinion" no matter what the rules say. (Because, as has been noted, "murder" is noted in the rules as an evil act.)Killing, in and of itself, is evil. You are denying other people the right to live for reasons that essentially have to do with yourself - your own well-being. This is the foundation.Well that's an opinion.
I don't believe this is a "without context" discussion Sin. In fact it's been all about context and in my comment I provided explicit context.
I don't believe this is a "without context" discussion Sin. In fact it's been all about context and in my comment I provided explicit context.Yes, killing is an evil act, without context, is an opinion. Murder and killing have two different meanings, both in definition and colloquial.When "killing is an evil act" (in the context, especially, of murdering helpless prisoners) is dismissed as "an opinion", then it's pretty much clear that EVERYTHING is "just an opinion" no matter what the rules say. (Because, as has been noted, "murder" is noted in the rules as an evil act.)Killing, in and of itself, is evil. You are denying other people the right to live for reasons that essentially have to do with yourself - your own well-being. This is the foundation.Well that's an opinion.
The guy I was quoting stated that it was evil without context, but with context it changed. He was who I was responding to, not you. The Shaman, just to be clear.
Although i would like a little more information on what kind of people the thugs were (thug isn't something very definitive), i would say that it's a minor to moderate evil act, somewhere between using summon monster to summon an imp and cold blooded murder. No i don't think that his alignment should change from CN to CE only from that, put it his tab and continue.
The guy I was quoting stated that it was evil without context, but with context it changed. He was who I was responding to, not you. The Shaman, just to be clear.
I understand Sin. And you are technically and rhetorically correct. However, the point I was making is that this entire thread is about the context of murdering helpless, tied up prisoners, and I believe that was the "killing" that the post you were responding to was referencing.
If Shaman did not intend to imply "murder" instead of just "killing" then I agree with you. I felt that line of discussion was taking us off point and wanted to pull us back.
Well that's an opinion.
Hmm, I should have clarified that I meant killing with intent. Intentional killing without any context is killing without justification, and I see no reason for it not to be. The PF definition of evil states that "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" - so if we add intent and awareness of your actions, hurting, oppressing or killing "others" would be evil.
Do note, this is all without any context at all, nothing to give a motive, justification, or reason. Character X simply takes the life of Character Y. Considering the violation of Character Y (s/he's dead), and and the lack of any justification stated for character X, it definitely doesn't fit the MO of neither good or neutral alignments.
Now, usually, every killing has some justification or reason, however spurious. Yet at the core of every killing is the violation of someone's being. It could add to a net plus, so to speak, but you cannot remove that from the act of killing.
Anyway, here I go for the action of the rogue in the OP probably being an evil act, but more details wouldn't hurt.
Wow. I'm assuming that the people here arguing that killing them is evil, always save their opponents lives if they are knocked unconscious. After all failing to save them, is the same a killing them.
We do lack a bit of knowledge to make a truly accurate call here. The criminals, do we know exactly what kind of criminals they were? Why did the character kill them? (It could be mercy, the local lord draws and quarters or otherwise tortures criminals.)
There are other reasons why killing them would not be an evil act. Unless they planned on guarding or transporting them to some place safe. Just leaving the unconscious bodies would allow what ever wandered by to kill/eat them alive, etc. That in my book is much more EVIL than killing them in a merciful way.
Wow, this alignment thread is getting vitriolic and distracted from its original issue.
Look how surprised I am. This is my surprised kobold face.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... Assuming Batman and Han Solo get in a fight over the question posed in the thread title, who wins? Or, if they both simultaneously kill each other, were any alignment infractions committed on either side? :-)
Wow. I'm assuming that the people here arguing that killing them is evil, always save their opponents lives if they are knocked unconscious. After all failing to save them, is the same a killing them.
No, failing to save someone is not the same thing as killing them outright. Most of my good aligned characters do, in fact, stabilize and attempt to capture enemies when they can. My neutral characters, meh, maybe. My evil characters, almost never, unless they want something from the enemy.
We do lack a bit of knowledge to make a truly accurate call here. The criminals, do we know exactly what kind of criminals they were? Why did the character kill them? (It could be mercy, the local lord draws and quarters or otherwise tortures criminals.)
We know the rogue who did the deeds lied about them because he was concerned that his party would object to his actions. That's hard to reconcile with "they were better off dead."
There are other reasons why killing them would not be an evil act. Unless they planned on guarding or transporting them to some place safe. Just leaving the unconscious bodies would allow what ever wandered by to kill/eat them alive, etc. That in my book is much more EVIL than killing them in a merciful way.
Your book is an unusual book. And nobody suggested leaving any unconscious characters anywhere to be randomly murdered by passing monsters. That's a total fabrication on your part to try to make your point.
Wow. I'm assuming that the people here arguing that killing them is evil, always save their opponents lives if they are knocked unconscious. After all failing to save them, is the same a killing them.No, failing to save someone is not the same thing as killing them outright. Most of my good aligned characters do, in fact, stabilize and attempt to capture enemies when they can. My neutral characters, meh, maybe. My evil characters, almost never, unless they want something from the enemy.
No, if you are not saving someone's life when you have the means and ability, you are doing the same as killing them.
We do lack a bit of knowledge to make a truly accurate call here. The criminals, do we know exactly what kind of criminals they were? Why did the character kill them? (It could be mercy, the local lord draws and quarters or otherwise tortures criminals.)We know the rogue who did the deeds lied about them because he was concerned that his party would object to his actions. That's hard to reconcile with "they were better off dead."
How do we know that the party would have objected? All we know is that he lied about how they died. You are making an assumption that the party would object. The rogue could enjoy telling lies, he could be setting the party up for some further lies. There could be many reasons for why he lied.
There are other reasons why killing them would not be an evil act. Unless they planned on guarding or transporting them to some place safe. Just leaving the unconscious bodies would allow what ever wandered by to kill/eat them alive, etc. That in my book is much more EVIL than killing them in a merciful way.Your book is an unusual book. And nobody suggested leaving any unconscious characters anywhere to be randomly murdered by passing monsters. That's a total fabrication on your part to try to make your point.
Ah, you assume that nothing will wander by to eat a free meal? Not rats, mice, insects, anything? What a sterile world you live in. We have no knowledge that the party wasn't going to just leave them there.
Wow, you're really committed to pushing your point aren't you Vod. OK, you win. I don't have the energy or motivation to try to debate with you.
Ah,...
The very fact that the party left him with the bandits shows they weren't going to just leave them there. And being as the first post established they were in the bandits base of operations, it would be unlikely any creatures were go to wander by and eat them.
What fastidious bandits we have, if there are no rats, mice, roaches, or other critters and vermin that will eat free meat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Foghammer, to answer your question the Rogue's intelligence is 14.
Shaman, the situation was that the party was moving through the city at night when they witnessed a kidnapping and went to investigate the building where the victim was taken. They were told by two men guarding the building to buzz off, and so they snuck around the back of the building, alerted some guard dogs, and a melee ensued. The party ran and hid, but later returned in hopes of sneaking in. The thugs were expecting trouble, so they engaged the party in battle, in which the party was able to handle the thugs, their dogs, and the thug leader - ALL of whom were disabled by the end of battle. (And again, two of the thugs threw down their weapons and surrendered). The party then went inside the building through a cellar door, found a room with holding cells and decided to tie up the unconscious thugs and their boss and put them holding cells.
Now, the idea was to interrogate the thugs and their...
I ask that you check my post, very bottom of the first page. I stand by my analysis that your CN Rogue is acting CN.
Looking at the OPs question, it really comes down to the rogue's motivation for killing the thugs. If it was revenge driven our out of a self preservation or avoiding future trouble then it was possibly not evil [within the constraints of the game's morals not reality]. If it was for kicks, because they could, out of boredom, being malicious, as a 'punishment' to the rest of the party for not stopping him, being deliberately cruel, wanting to see how the long the blood flowed before they died etc then it was an evil act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The CN Rogue poured kerosene on him, lit him on fire, and then "put out the flames" so as not to kill him.
Aaaaand that is torture by any definition I can think of...which is always an evil act.
The CN Rogue poured kerosene on him, lit him on fire, and then "put out the flames" so as not to kill him.Aaaaand that is torture by any definition I can think of...which is always an evil act.
Again, first page, last post.
*why* he does things is as important as what he does.
If the prissioners were going to be tortured, and then suffer a painful slow death, killing them in a painless way would not be an evil act. It might even ge a good one. Having other lives to balance out, as the terrorist-city nuking example, might be neutral. Cultural background might help the case for neutral too (like middle age King Henry slaughtering prisioners as mentioned earlier)
However, this rogue did such things *because he found it pleasurable*. He *relished* on other people's pain and suffering. That's as evil as you can get in D&D terms.
@ Indus - hmm, sounds like convenience was his primary motivator here. I think this pushes the act towards evil - not enough to merit immediate alignment change on its own, but definitely something to keep an eye on.
Where does it fall alignment wise to hang or otherwise execute the prisoners after the battle? And then, what if you could easily turn them in to the authorities, but you execute them? Or what if you are to far from any authorities, and just execute them?
Executing a tried criminal is something else entirely.
The god of execution is LG for example.If you are too far from any authority the question is: Who are you? Do you have any authority? If a paladin worshiping the god of law held a field trial and condemned the prisoner it would be very different again to some thug (most adventurers are thugs) just decided that their lives are not worth it and killed them off without another word.
If a member of the party kills the prisoners secretly, lying about it it's clearly evil territory for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something I see a lot in these alignment debates is the argument that if execution is not evil, then killing in general is not evil. An argument frequently proposed is that if the captured individuals are being held for crimes that would get them executed by the state, then the party can execute them without any alignment issues.
This is not accurate in terms of any moral, ethical or criminal code that I am aware of on this planet. Execution is an act that is performed after a trial, and the trial's purpose is to ensure that justice is done. Even in war there are rules about when and why battlefield executions are allowed, and military leaders who have performed or allowed executions without proper military code being followed have been tried and some of them have been executed for their crimes themselves.
It may be hard for some gamers to believe, but even in wartime, even in the midst of massive death and destruction, even considering horrific warcrimes committed by one side or the other, execution of a prisoner is considered to be a serious issue worthy of review and punishment if necessary. In real life anyway people take this very seriously. In many cases nations have been held liable for millions of dollars of damages for the killing of captured prisoners, even years after the act, and military officers who approved of the unjust executions have been tried and punished for their acts.
So the idea that "they are guilty so it's OK to execute them" is simply not accurate. They are not "guilty" until they have had a chance to defend themselves and been found guilty by the appropriate civil or military court or due process. Killing prisoners without that due process is a criminal act.
I went through this with the party paladin in the current campaign I am running. It is frequently the case that paladins are played as judge, jury and executioner. I explained to him that doing so in most of the nations in my world would put his paladin in danger of being arrested and tried for murder. Over time he had his paladin work within the system of justice and earn the legal designation as a duly appointed and empowered judge. He can now hold in the field trials and if the party is found guilty, then execution can be performed. In that case justice has been served. He has held three such battlefield trials so far, and at least once his initial assumptions proved to be invalid and the prisoner was found not guilty.
I know a lot of gamers don't want to play the game with attention to details like this. And that's fine. But the argument that a rogue can execute prisoners just because they are guilty is simply not accurate from any legal, ethical or moral perspective in the real world. Taking another sentient creature's life is something that requires cause, and especially taking the life of a helpless prisoner requires cause.
@OP
How the party percieved them doesn't matter (a lot), if the scumbags were evil i stand by my previous statement a minor to moderate evil action, then he went ahead and tortured the boss in the way he did another evil action. Still i don't think that those should shift him to CE but he sure is racing to CE, make sure the player knows that he is heading torwards CE and continue your game.
Anyone ever think its stupid for batman to not kill the villains and just lock em up so they escape again, possibly killing more people?
Would it make batman "evil" to finish off joker after beating him in one of their battles?