| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I consider all babies helpless....but most are tasty too....
So, why can't a tied up unconscious person be tasty as well?
The perceptions of the individual characters matter is the point. An overwhelming amount of precedence can make something good or evil regardless of objective observations. If there stands to be a good chance in the character's mind a prisoner will escape and cause more harm, then it can actually be a good act to kill them even though at the moment they may have surrendered and be tied up.
Personally I consider all babies helpless....but most are tasty too....So, why can't a tied up unconscious person be tasty as well?
Unconscious, tied-up people tend not to be as tender. You have to apply a hammer to them to tenderize.
Seriously, the first 2/3 of this thread reads to me like a continuation of the endless whining about how "ALL players need to be ruthlessly controlled or kicked to the curb, and preferrably dealt with in a hostile, passive-aggressive manner because of their entitlement."
Seriously, "Player wrote CN on sheet and therefore PC is automatically evil and player is automatically a jerk -- I don't even need to see how the PC acts in game!"
Just wow.
P.S.: To be clear, I'm not arguing that murdering helpless people isn't evil; that's hard to do with a straight face. But the prima facie judgment of players and their characters always riles me up. I prefer "Seems like that's acting pretty CE, or so it will seem to the villagers" vs. "You're acting evil! I caught you! I'm changing your alignment!"
|
Personally I consider all babies helpless....but most are tasty too....So, why can't a tied up unconscious person be tasty as well?
The perceptions of the individual characters matter is the point. An overwhelming amount of precedence can make something good or evil regardless of objective observations. If there stands to be a good chance in the character's mind a prisoner will escape and cause more harm, then it can actually be a good act to kill them even though at the moment they may have surrendered and be tied up.
And from the posts of the OP and rogue player, do you find that these 'overwhelming amount of precedence' make the thugs that were killed ' Evil ' or were just thugs who were probably CN same as the rogue character?
Just going from the OP (cuz I have neither the care nor concern to search the entire thread) the events are:
Party was attacked by criminals. They had to know this somehow. Did they have a personal history with them? Were they otherwise notorious?
The party was assaulted. They were attacked probably with lethal weapons using lethal force. No nonlethal damage here.
The party subdued them and tied them up.
So we've got some folks who have the seeming habit of killing folks in the area. Is is wrong to put them down after they've surrendered? Only if killing goblin babies is wrong which Paizo says can be good depending on personal views. The rogue was CN. He was under no requirement to honor any oaths or codes let alone laws. He's neutral so his views of goodness and evil are probably rather self-centered and probably limited to an "in the moment" perspective. Thus, evil? no.
|
|
Stating your opinion on little to no info about the posted questions is unhelpful.
I reposted all info from OP and the rogue player on page 6.
Chaotic and neutral doesnt equate to moraly bankrupt.
The rogue pretty much killed for revenge and what he considered convenience.
Of course as always this is just my opinion.
|
|
This is the original post. The GM is asking for advise on the players actions and when do people think said action are enough to consider an alignment change.Need some help here.
Here's the situation, in brief: Party encounters thugs / criminals who assault party. Party defeats thugs, disabling (but not killing) the enemies (they stabilize). The party then splits up - CN Rogue stays with the unconscious thugs, rest of group searches building for more enemies to secure the grounds.
While the party is gone, CN Rogue secretly (through a note to GM) injures all the disabled baddies, so they "bleed out", dying before the others return. When others return, he feigns ignorance (backed up by Bluff rolls) and convinces his comrades he doesn't know what happened to baddies.
So I need your advice:
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?
2) If it presses toward evil, by how much? All the way to Chaotic Evil? Half way?
3) How do you handle this sort of thing in game?
Thanks for any help. Chaotic Neutral is an alignment that gets defined many different ways, and this situation is giving me trouble.
Stating your opinion on little to no info about the posted questions is unhelpful.
I reposted all info from OP and the rogue player on page 6.
Chaotic and neutral doesnt equate to moraly bankrupt.
The rogue pretty much killed for revenge and what he considered convenience.
Of course as always this is just my opinion.
Eliminating future trouble, as the OP put it in a post you quoted, is squarely how this can be a good act. The morally bankrupt ones are the criminals. The rogue merely stopped them from being able to work their violent activities. If you couldn't do this without moral bankruptcy, how are angels, paladins, adventuring parties, police, rulers, judges, gods ever good?
|
|
Indus
Replying to my earlier post because some of the details seem to have gotten lost during the course of discussion.
Indus wrote:
To answer the "why did he do it" question, my feeling is that he wanted to eliminate future trouble (aka the thugs hunting him down for retribution) and also for convenience to simplify / control the situation. What I mean by simplify is that, yes, there is a Lawful Good character in the party (who was away with the rest of the party when this happened, keep in mind) and I think he didn't want to have to deal with the LG character insisting on hauling them into the authorities.
Additionally, I'll add that two out of the three of these thugs had thrown down their weapons and surrendered before they were knocked unconscious. Furthermore, all three were tied up with rope and locked inside a jail cell for safekeeping. The CN Rogue was just there to "keep any eye on them".
So yes, he is lying to the party about it because many/most of them are good alignments and would not approve, and he knows this.
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 boss after searching the upstairs of the house for more possible enemies. The CN Rogue offered to keep an eye on the unconscious foes while the rest of the party, three of which were good alignments and one lawful good, went upstairs. It was during this time the player passed me a note letting me know that he "reopens" the injuries on the thugs so they bleed out. He is very careful to make sure the cells are locked and everything in place before the rest of the group returns.
The rogue DOES let the thug boss live to interrogate later, but the "grunts" are just killed off. Again, it seems the motivation, the "why" is for convenience sake - not having to deal with a bunch of injured enemies when he knows the Lawful Good character might want them brought in to local authorities.
leo1925, as far as the party can tell, the thugs are robbers and/or slavers
Additionally, I'll just add that no one in the party did a "Detect Evil" on the thugs after they were disabled. The party did not find any kidnap victims on the premises. They did find evidence of smuggling. The thugs were attacking with bolts laced with drow poison (I only mention because their intent seemed to be "capture" not kill)
Last, yes, the party did interrogate the boss later that night. The CN Rogue poured kerosene on him, lit him on fire, and then "put out the flames" so as not to kill him. While the other players weren't their for the slayings of the thugs, they did witness this and objected (though not strongly enough for their Lawful Good alignments in my opinion). But that is a whole other issue I'm having to deal with and I didn't want to derail this thread from the main question of the CN Rogue's actions with the disabled thugs.
Hope that clarifies things somewhat, though I fear the amount of detail may just muddle it even further at this point.
As you can see there is a bit for going on.
|
|
This is a post from the player who played the Rogue.It sounds like the CN rogue in your example felt that the 3 thugs he bled out had already made their choice in terms of doing good or evil when they attacked the party. They used poison, worked for an employer involved in illegal activities and likely would be killed if they failed in their hired tasks.
He reasonably waited for the rest of the group namely the LG member to exit knowing that they would likely insist on somehow hauling these 4 thugs back to the authorities even though a number of factors probably made this an extremely dangerous and futile task.
Interrogating and torturing the head thug who likely would have ordered his henchmen to kill the party (or kidnap them) in order to protect the racket was merely a means to an end. I'm sure the player thought the same would be done to them so the thugs could find out "who they worked for". Think of what Liam Neeson's character did in Taken. Were those acts CE?
You mentioned the CN rogue lit the head thug on fire only to then put him out and let him live after the interrogation. Interesting choice if he is deemed to be shifting towards CE.
In the end perhaps the CN rogue was merely doing what he felt no one else had the stomach to do or he wanted to save some of the members from having to struggle with some very tough moral choices. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what he had in mind.... considering I'm the player of the CN rogue ;-)
|
|
Just to be clear the lamp oil thing was only a bold way of getting the boss to talk after he laughed in my character's face and wouldn't crack. A candle was tossed at him as the final "last ditch" effort to break him and the flames were quickly put out. From personal experience (flaming shot gone awry) this would only have resulting in superficial 2nd degree burns which would heal just fine leaving no permanent scars.
The 3 thugs that were killed were unconscious at the time so the idea was to end their lives without additional pain and suffering. My PC also made the choice to cut the ropes off the boss after he went unconscious (was at 0 hp) from the fire damage and give him back the most likely magic dagger the group had taken from him. This same dagger was used by the boss to drop my PC from 10 hp (max) to 0 hp with one critical hit. Poetic I thought.
I tried to play a bit of regret from perhaps going too far with the interrogations and the idea of hopefully tracking this guy to the bigger fish. Interesting that no one other than my GM (the OP) made any comments about my Taken reference. Ask 100 movie goers their thoughts on his actions. Leave a guy tied to a chair and turn on the power? I bet no one polled would say that was evil because it was justified by the bad guy's actions. And therein lies the rub...
This is the only other post from the rogue.
Chaotic neutral, I could see the rogue killing them out of self preservation, he may see it as stupid to let people live that will most likely want revenge and come to try to kill him again.
This is hardly morally bankrupt. Simply making a decision based on facts and evidence rather than a moral compass. Aka neutral
If a CG character can kill helpless foes (which they can), then a CN character can kill hepless foes.
I don't think people understand the ramifications of being Chaotic. You don't have to follow some code of honor when it comes to the people who just tried to kill you.
I would even go so far as to say LG isn't even required to not kill helpless foes. The ideals of alignment differ in many ways and if you read the note in the atonement spell normally a player chooses when to change their alignment not the GM. As a player your alignment is whatever the hell you want it to be as long as you can provide at least thin reasoning to your actions.
...when was it decided that a Chaotic Person can kill helpless foes, defeated foes? "Taking justice into your own hands" means hunting down the villains on your own- instead of waiting for them to go through the (lawful) legal system. Beating the crap out of villains, instead of (lawfully) attempting to arrest them is doling out your own justice. Killing them in a sword fight, even stabbing them from behind, instead of challenging them to a (lawful) duel, meets the rebellious needs.
But putting your blade to the throat of some one who has surrendered, been tied up, and sawing away until the blood stop splashing around...that's not a good act, or a neutral act.
No, you don't have to follow an honorable code for a chaotic character. But chaotic isn't a justification for evil acts (evil justifies evil acts). Just because the Lawful Good paladin won't do it hardly means the Chaotic (Anything) rogue will do it.
Again, my opinion of how alignment is to used: make your character's personality, and then pick the alignment that closest matches that personality. As long as you stick pretty close to the same personality, there shouldn't be alignment issues. If there are- say, if your character starts killing prisoners or lighting them on fire- that's when its the GM's job to say "your character is acting less like some one of that alignment, and more like this alignment. You might want to think about changing alignments."
If the player refuses, and continues to play a different alignment than what's on his/her sheet, that's when its the GM's job to step in. "In my game, your character is portraying a character of this alignment. From now on, that character will detect as that alignment, and subject to all benefits and penalties of doing so, until you play that character differently."
In the end, its a form of character growth. The player has chosen to change his alignment; the GM is just changing if smite works on him.
If a CG character can kill helpless foes (which they can), then a CN character can kill hepless foes.
I don't think people understand the ramifications of being Chaotic. You don't have to follow some code of honor when it comes to the people who just tried to kill you.
I would even go so far as to say LG isn't even required to not kill helpless foes. The ideals of alignment differ in many ways and if you read the note in the atonement spell normally a player chooses when to change their alignment not the GM. As a player your alignment is whatever the hell you want it to be as long as you can provide at least thin reasoning to your actions.
Agreed. Context and motivation are extremely important when it comes to the morality of killing a helpless opponent. There's a huge moral difference between executing an evildoer who must be removed as a threat to all that is good, and just killing a prisoner because their presence is an inconvenience. Going by the paladin codes in "Faiths of Purity" even the redemption-minded Sarenae is aware that sometimes evildoers must be "redeemed by the sword."
|
|
Agreed. Context and motivation are extremely important when it comes to the morality of killing a helpless opponent. There's a huge moral difference between executing an evildoer who must be removed as a threat to all that is good, and just killing a prisoner because their presence is an inconvenience. Going by the paladin codes in "Faiths of Purity" even the redemption-minded Sarenae is aware that sometimes evildoers must be "redeemed by the sword."If a CG character can kill helpless foes (which they can), then a CN character can kill hepless foes.
I don't think people understand the ramifications of being Chaotic. You don't have to follow some code of honor when it comes to the people who just tried to kill you.
I would even go so far as to say LG isn't even required to not kill helpless foes. The ideals of alignment differ in many ways and if you read the note in the atonement spell normally a player chooses when to change their alignment not the GM. As a player your alignment is whatever the hell you want it to be as long as you can provide at least thin reasoning to your actions.
Definitely agree with this.
Definitely agree with this.Agreed. Context and motivation are extremely important when it comes to the morality of killing a helpless opponent. There's a huge moral difference between executing an evildoer who must be removed as a threat to all that is good, and just killing a prisoner because their presence is an inconvenience. Going by the paladin codes in "Faiths of Purity" even the redemption-minded Sarenae is aware that sometimes evildoers must be "redeemed by the sword."If a CG character can kill helpless foes (which they can), then a CN character can kill hepless foes.
I don't think people understand the ramifications of being Chaotic. You don't have to follow some code of honor when it comes to the people who just tried to kill you.
I would even go so far as to say LG isn't even required to not kill helpless foes. The ideals of alignment differ in many ways and if you read the note in the atonement spell normally a player chooses when to change their alignment not the GM. As a player your alignment is whatever the hell you want it to be as long as you can provide at least thin reasoning to your actions.
If there is a Good and an Evil reason to kill a helpless foe, then there is a neutral reason.
For example, to neutralize a potential threat. You surrendering, doesn't mean you can't be a threat in the future. Protecting yourself is a neutral act.
If there is a Good and an Evil reason to kill a helpless foe, then there is a neutral reason.
Still haven't figured out how killing defeated/surrendered has a "Good" reason. At best, it would be an evil act a good character could justify to anyone who asks. It would still be an evil act.
For example, to neutralize a potential threat. You surrendering, doesn't mean you can't be a threat in the future. Protecting yourself is a neutral act.
...so riding down the street, hacking at towns folk left an right is just fine, 'cuz them dirty commoners are always plottin' and who knows just when one will get in their minds to be some mass murderin' crime lord.
In my world, where I live [also known as Real Life (tm)], there is black and white, and grey, and a whole bunch of other colors and shades of morality. A truly good person- and I mean some one who makes Captain America look like an amoral villain- can kill a helpless person and be thought of as doing a very good thing...with the right circumstances and/or reasons.
In Pathfinder/D&D/etc., where heroes glow and dragons are color coded, good and evil are not so easily excused.
So pre-emptive self-defense, 'yes your honor, I could tell that he was, possibly-eventually-maybe somewhere down the line going to be, a threat so I killed him.'
Odd. I can take your quote verbatim and wrap that up with 'His people are an evil known to all. Goblins shouldn't suffer to live.' and the court would probably agree with you. Thing is courts are meant to be neutral places. Only law and custom matters there.
And straight from Champions of Purity:
One of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them-but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation?
Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature-either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.
If it's cool to kill a typically evil race's children who have committed no wrong yet, logically, it's fine to kill humanoids with a proven history of evil doings. In fact, it should be more good as you're stamping out actual sources of evil instead of merely likely ones.
Definitely agree with this.
If there is a Good and an Evil reason to kill a helpless foe, then there is a neutral reason.
For example, to neutralize a potential threat. You surrendering, doesn't mean you can't be a threat in the future. Protecting yourself is a neutral act.
I would say that's a reasonable position if prisoner presents themselves a as a legitimate future threat. I would consider This Scene to be a pretty good example.
|
|
I would say that's a reasonable position if prisoner presents themselves a as a legitimate future threat. I would consider This Scene to be a pretty good example.Definitely agree with this.If there is a Good and an Evil reason to kill a helpless foe, then there is a neutral reason.
For example, to neutralize a potential threat. You surrendering, doesn't mean you can't be a threat in the future. Protecting yourself is a neutral act.
The scene from Firefly I can understand but at no point in the examples give by the OP were the thugs given a chance to be belligerent like the guy in the Firefly scene. The thugs surrendered, were knocked unconscious, and tied up then the rogue killed them while the rest of the party was investigating the building.
|
|
If there is a Good and an Evil reason to kill a helpless foe, then there is a neutral reason.
For example, to neutralize a potential threat. You surrendering, doesn't mean you can't be a threat in the future. Protecting yourself is a neutral act.
I would say that's a reasonable position if prisoner presents themselves a as a legitimate future threat. I would consider This Scene to be a pretty good example.
The scene from Firefly I can understand but at no point in the examples give by the OP were the thugs given a chance to be belligerent like the guy in the Firefly scene. The thugs surrendered, were knocked unconscious, and tied up then the rogue killed them while the rest of the party was investigating the building.
So pre-emptive self-defense, 'yes your honor, I could tell that he was, possibly-eventually-maybe somewhere down the line going to be, a threat so I killed him.'
Why would a chaotic character care what their excuse is to the judge?
Why would a chaotic character not be lying to the judge in this situation?
Sorry Marthkus but the impression I'm getting from what your saying it that anybody with chaotic in thier alignment is someone you cant trust.
Why would anyone tell the truth when its very obviously going to cause a problem?
|
I would say that's a reasonable position if prisoner presents themselves a as a legitimate future threat. I would consider This Scene to be a pretty good example.Definitely agree with this.If there is a Good and an Evil reason to kill a helpless foe, then there is a neutral reason.
For example, to neutralize a potential threat. You surrendering, doesn't mean you can't be a threat in the future. Protecting yourself is a neutral act.
Im pretty sure that guy wasnt exactly a surrendered unconcious fellow either.
Why must they present themselves a future threat? I don't think a single person in this thread would hold the same "nah, clearly not evil" stance were it a demon trying to atone. It's happened.
As to the clip, it's fine to kill to force others into cooperating with you. Isn't that all the self-gain/convenience train of thought??
Why would a chaotic character care what their excuse is to the judge?
Why would a chaotic character not be lying to the judge in this situation?
The point here was to illustrate the poor reasoning, not to insinuate such a character would appear before a judge, or other representative of ordered justice.
Why would anyone tell the truth when its very obviously going to cause a problem?
Because failing to tell the truth often brings bigger problems later down the road. Especially in the fantasy roleplaying game, where a characters lies are remembered by the GM, who might just bring it back to haunt him. High sense motive scores, truth spells, the ever popular "already know the truth, just waiting to catch you in a lie" set-up, and so on are also good reasons even a chaotic character would tell the truth.
Awesome, awesome Firefly scene
The Firefly scene- one of my favorite- if put into a D&D/Pathfinder setting, would be not be a good act, or even a neutral one. Malcom would still have a Good alignment as otherwise he is portrayed (or "played") as a Good guy, and this murder was mitigated by the very evil victim not having surrendered, and definitely be a threat later down the road.
And I agree that the scene has little to do with a handful of unconscious, bound thugs who surrendered, and later made to bleed out.
The scene from Firefly I can understand but at no point in the examples give by the OP were the thugs given a chance to be belligerent like the guy in the Firefly scene. The thugs surrendered, were knocked unconscious, and tied up then the rogue killed them while the rest of the party was investigating the building.
What should have been done with the prisoners? Turning them into the authorities would most likely mean that they would hang. They're dying from your actions no matter what you do unless you were planning on letting go bandits who have hurt and/or killed who knows how many innocent people.
Outlaws don't got rights, hence the whole "outlaw" part.
|
|
The scene from Firefly I can understand but at no point in the examples give by the OP were the thugs given a chance to be belligerent like the guy in the Firefly scene. The thugs surrendered, were knocked unconscious, and tied up then the rogue killed them while the rest of the party was investigating the building.What should have been done with the prisoners? Turning them into the authorities would most likely mean that they would hang. They're dying from your actions no matter what you do unless you were planning on letting go bandits who have hurt and/or killed who knows how many innocent people.
Outlaws don't got rights, hence the whole "outlaw" part.
Right 'who knows', you are making assumption to justify your actions. As far as you know the 'thugs' have killed no one.
Right 'who knows', you are making assumption to justify your actions. As far as you know the 'thugs' have killed no one.
Truth!
I have a paladin who was the bane of some bandit groups. Any survivers were judged on a case by case. Some of them had only been with the bands for a couple of weeks and hadn't really done anything too evil yet. He was more lenient toward them.
|
Seriously, the first 2/3 of this thread reads to me like a continuation of the endless whining about how "ALL players need to be ruthlessly controlled or kicked to the curb, and preferrably dealt with in a hostile, passive-aggressive manner because of their entitlement."
Seriously, "Player wrote CN on sheet and therefore PC is automatically evil and player is automatically a jerk -- I don't even need to see how the PC acts in game!"
Just wow.
P.S.: To be clear, I'm not arguing that murdering helpless people isn't evil; that's hard to do with a straight face. But the prima facie judgment of players and their characters always riles me up. I prefer "Seems like that's acting pretty CE, or so it will seem to the villagers" vs. "You're acting evil! I caught you! I'm changing your alignment!"
+1
I like your vote.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
General Rule:
If you have to ask whether or not a Chaotic "Neutral" character has gone evil, it means he's already there.
