That's true, but in general, every social group is going to have a pecking order, and when the top of that pecking order is taken out the rest will generally follow the new leader.While that makes sense I've never seen it applied in practice. It also implies the enemy group has a leader rather than making a collective decision to beg for their lives.Typically the time to negotiate terms of surrender is before you lay down your weapons, not after and talking is a free action that can be done irregardless of the initiative count.Did the villains negotiate terms of their surrender?I don't think they got a chance to.
Mr. Popo's always at the top.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my mind: Not forgiving people for trying to kill you is not evil, at all. At worst, their actions were neutral.
You can't attack people until you realize you're losing, and then just expect to go on as happy friends. Asking for mercy is not the same as deserving it.
As for the "battle-fury" argument: If you can't distinguish between an armed attacker and a surrendering foe - you're going to die!
Further, an evil character that claims to have surrendered is still a threat. They may very well put a knife through your eye the moment you put your guard down. How can you trust someone that was, just a moment ago, trying to end your life? A naive/gullible adventurer is a dead adventurer.
|
There are a lot of good points raised here. I think it is important not to evaluate the situation through "your" eyes, but rather the eyes of the character you're playing. I see this as a strength of the Alignment system as it currently exists. A "good" character isn't going to think in terms of "if I spare this bad guy, he may very well turn around and stick a knife in my eye first chance he gets". Rather, a "good" character is going to think in terms of "if I spare this bad guy, he could see the error of his ways and turn his life around".
This doesn't mean the "good" guy is going to turn his back on the bad guy. Good does not equal Stupid.
I see fallacy in any argument that maintains a good character is staying true to "good" by having thoughts that aren't consistent with the good philosophy.
Further, an evil character that claims to have surrendered is still a threat. They may very well put a knife through your eye the moment you put your guard down. How can you trust someone that was, just a moment ago, trying to end your life? A naive/gullible adventurer is a dead adventurer.
That's an excellent view from a pragmatically neutral character and one I fully support. However, it's not really a "good" opinion. At least not if the action it's rationalizing is chopping of their heads rather than tying their hands behind their backs.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new Thor movie has a scene with this situation. A bunch of monstrous dudes drop their weapons after Thor annihilates their big meanie, and I think the 'heroes' would have looked *very* different if they then proceeded to casually slaughtering the unarmed beasties.
Obviously the standards of heroism are higher for comic book superheroes than for 'good' in D&D style games (since superheroes don't generally make their living by invading other peoples homes, killing them and stealing their stuff), but I think murdering people (since it becomes murder when it's not self-defense or justified or a lawful execution) is pretty clearly on the 'not good' bar.
First:
Most definitely an evil act.
Once a foe surrenders a a character behaving "good" will accept the surrender. The enemy no longer posed a threat and were unarmed. Killing unarmed persons who have put themselves at your mercy is evil, without question.
Second:
This should not shift their alignment after only one incident. Though it should begin to cast a shadow over the players. The campaign should likewise shift. If this occurs multiple times then the world (and NPCs) should become more dark and harsh (less heroic) to match the tone set by your players.
Continued behavior like this and the players may find out that they are the unwitting champions of a force of darkness. For example, finding out that two demons made bets on how many people are murdered by the party.
Eaghen, I find it hard to believe that it would honestly not occur to a Lawful Good paladin that a defeated enemy just might rise up to strike back at him. For that, I think we would need a Z axis on our alignment chart to quantify how naive a character is. Then we'd have a 3x3x3 cube of 27 alignments. You could have Lawful Good Optimist, Lawful Good Realist, and Lawful Good Pessimist...
An enemy is still a threat, even when they've surrendered.
Eaghen, I find it hard to believe that it would honestly not occur to a Lawful Good paladin that a defeated enemy just might rise up to strike back at him. For that, I think we would need a Z axis on our alignment chart to quantify how naive a character is. Then we'd have a 3x3x3 cube of 27 alignments. You could have Lawful Good Optimist, Lawful Good Realist, and Lawful Good Pessimist...
Striking down an unarmed opponent because he might rise up again is not a LG act. It is pragmatic and perhaps cautious. But not very paladin-like behavior.
This is exactly what sets good apart from neutral and evil. Sometimes you do things that are less pragmatic because they are morally appropriate.
To quote Shepard Book: "If you can't do something smart, do something right."
Nobody involved in this scenario was a paladin, Democratus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An enemy is still a threat, even when they've surrendered.
A rich merchant who doesn't like you can be a threat. But that doesn't mean a good character would murder him.
Being a possible future threat isn't enough if you are trying to be good.
It's plenty if you are neutral or evil, though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eaghen, I find it hard to believe that it would honestly not occur to a Lawful Good paladin that a defeated enemy just might rise up to strike back at him. For that, I think we would need a Z axis on our alignment chart to quantify how naive a character is. Then we'd have a 3x3x3 cube of 27 alignments. You could have Lawful Good Optimist, Lawful Good Realist, and Lawful Good Pessimist...
The possibility would certainly occur to a LG character. LG does not equal stupid. But their actions would be governed by the other thought...that redemption is possible.
Nobody involved in this scenario was a paladin, Democratus.
If you read the quote I was responding to - it actually says "paladin" right in there.
Good characters aren't obligated to take "good" actions 100% of the time. Sometimes, circumstances warranting, they are forced to make difficult decisions. Hence, why a pragmatic-good character would continue fighting, even when the bad guy drops his weapon. Hell, it might be acceptable for a paladin even, granted he pauses for a moment and allows his enemy the chance to pick up their weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And for all concerned, it hasn't happened yet. BBEG died and my comrade and I are ready to kill the ONE perhaps TWO nearest us before we turn the other cheek and give everybody a Mr. Rogers style hug. As the session wound down, the GM explained that killing "helpless" enemies is against our alignments and wrong etc... Correct me if I'm wrong here, GM, but as I understand this, the baddies have thrown up their hands and surrendered. I see us as being within the first six seconds after they surrender. What I am coming to understand here is that if I don't act the perfect princess here, then I'm the worst thing to happen since the worldwound. Maybe I should serve tea and crackers to the horde that was just a few moments ago trying to peel my face off.
|
|
Good characters aren't obligated to take "good" actions 100% of the time. Sometimes, circumstances warranting, they are forced to make difficult decisions. Hence, why a pragmatic-good character would continue fighting, even when the bad guy drops his weapon. Hell, it might be acceptable for a paladin even, granted he pauses for a moment and allows his enemy the chance to pick up their weapon.
This assumes the good guy knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bad guy is beyond redemption...a factor that is definitely not in the OP.
|
|
And for all concerned, it hasn't happened yet. BBEG died and my comrade and I are ready to kill the ONE perhaps TWO nearest us before we turn the other cheek and give everybody a Mr. Rogers style hug. As the session wound down, the GM explained that killing "helpless" enemies is against our alignments and wrong etc... Correct me if I'm wrong here, GM, but as I understand this, the baddies have thrown up their hands and surrendered. I see us as being within the first six seconds after they surrender. What I am coming to understand here is that if I don't act the perfect princess here, then I'm the worst thing to happen since the worldwound. Maybe I should serve tea and crackers to the horde that was just a few moments ago trying to peel my face off.
The bad guy standing immediately in front of you asks for two lumps please. :)
Good people perform evil acts. That doesn't make the acts less evil. It just means the good person slipped a bit.
Characters have a distinct advantage in that they are being run by players. A character has far more than 6 seconds to process what's happening every round, in many cases it is much more than 6 seconds.
A player can decide at any moment what his character will do. There are no involuntary losses of control or slips in reason. Any of this that occurs is deliberately done by the player.
So a good character can always do the right thing if the player decides. Or the player can have them drop the "righteousness" ball from time-to-time. And that's all RP.
The act itself stays evil. The character is only human (behind the mask).
It is hard to be the "good guy". I will agree with that, but I don't agree with the premise that a good character must always provide mercy/quarter. Circumstances are more nuanced than that. Unless you have reason to believe that your enemy is sincere (Sense Motive check), you're justified in your actions (even if they aren't necessarily "good"). As I've said before, this would be a neutral act in book, unless the characters involved took pleasure in the act of slaying their enemies. That would indicate evil, in my opinion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good is a commitment to be a step above others, to go beyond what normal people would do for others. It is not about convience or personal gain. Being good should not be easy.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Does a good character respect the life of his enemies? Will he make sacrifices to help his enemies? The answer to these questions will probably vary from character to character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The act is definitely evil. But that doesn't make the character evil.
All the arguments I have seen why it wouldn't be evil (mostly from Aravandor and Detect Magic) are great explanations why the act would be understandable in the circumstances. But that doesn't make it a non-evil action.
What an alignment is and what an aligned character does diverge from each other. Alignment is about an ideal. For Lawful Good, for example, its basically asking yourself "What would Superman do?" Will characters always live up to these ideals? No. That just means alignment shouldn't be determined off of one act. It doesn't mean the act itself was neutral or evil.
Does a good character respect the life of his enemies? Will he make sacrifices to help his enemies? The answer to these questions will probably vary from character to character.
Yes. Only if a good character has cause to believe that an enemy cannot be redeemed or turned into a friend should he write off the life of an enemy. Sarenrae would like us all to try to redeem every enemy when encounter if feasible, and only resort to violence when this is not possible. A good character should make sacrifices to help former enemies seeking redemption if they are sincere.
In any event, before whole slaughter takes place a good character would stop and consider the enemies and their request, whether or not they believe the words of their enemies and request for amnesty and attempt redemption. They would not watch their enemies throw down their weapons and proceed to kill them without tarrying or a second thought.
In a group of enemies like that, I would have my character ask the enemies to show their sincerity by removing any armor, and allowing themselves to be tied up. If an enemy is truly intent on redeeming himself he would accept this proposal (if he believes you're good) and allow you to take him to the authorities or other organization for rehabiliation.
The answer probably varies from god to god, too. Sarenrae would obviously stress a merciful response, whereas Torag might not. I could definitely see a paladin of Torag refusing to grant a group of orcs quarter. Does that make him less good?
Ugh, another thread demonstrating that the concept of universal alignment is useless.
This question is subjective. The best advice I can offer while staying in the bounds of the rules is to go back and read the alignment chapter and figure out which of the nine alignments best fits the act. Also, remember that a single act should almost never be sufficient to change a characters alignment, especially straight from good to evil or law to chaos (or vice versa).
On the other hand, remind the players that there is no mechanical penalty for changing alignment unless the character has an alignment-restricted class, an intelligent or other aligned magic item, or some other explicit restriction, and that if they act according to their character philosophies they are likely to end up back at their original alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer probably varies from god to god, too. Sarenrae would obviously stress a merciful response, whereas Torag might not. I could definitely see a paladin of Torag refusing to grant a group of orcs quarter. Does that make him less good?
A paladin of Torag unlikely to grant a group of Orcs quarter, very possible, however he is also very unlikely to slaughter them in surrender without weapons. If the Orcs are being genuine about surrender the paladin could tell them there is no quarter for the atrocities they have commited, and to pick back up their weapons and fight to the death. However....if the orcs refuse to fight I would still consider it an evil act for the paladin to kill Orcs who refuse to fight or defend themselves, regardless of the evil they have committed.
This is what makes good "good" instead of evil.
Remember, our Faithful Paladin of Torag can always take them to the magistrate, inform him of their misdeeds, and request the punishment of summary execution for their actions as part of their trial.
In real life "alignment" is subjective, but Pathfinder operates under pretty objective terms for alignment. It's not supposed to be murky, but it often is. Sometimes is can be hard to adjudicate becauase every situation is different. There can always be mitigating circumstances.
For most characters its largely irrelevant what your alignment is so just go with it and keep it in mind for the future. If you disagree with the GMs ruling or understanding of alignment talk to him about it (outside of game time) and ask him question to gain a better understanding of his views and then keep your play consistent with that, but you only need worry about that if you're a paladin or cleric really.
Edit: And to throw a real life twist on the discussion:
A victor gives no quarter when the victor shows no clemency or mercy and refuses to spare the life in return for the surrender at discretion (unconditional surrender) of a vanquished opponent.
Under the laws of war, "....it is especially forbidden....to declare that no quarter will be given". This was established under Article 23 (d) of the 1907 Hague Convention IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land.
Saying that you you will not accept quarter is considered a war crime under International Convention. So...
How does redemption ever happen if those that are evil are simply put to the sword for it?I somewhat disagree. If the enemies were undoubtedly evil, and the group KNEW it, then the Chaotic Good was spot on. Chaotic good is willing to and going to do good, regardless of "rules". therefor the bads have to die, period. Thats why he is chaotic. He didnt torture them, and drag it out, he killed them in combat while, yes helpless, but evil.
Neutral good kind of has a skinny little leg to stand on, where they generally follow "rules" but are not 100% beholden to them, so in theory, he could kill in the way a chaotic good would, but if he does it all the time, then he risks a shift towards chaotic. Neutral is just that, middle of the road.
I know this, because i am often one of these types as i usually play chaotic neutral. I will usually kill about 80% of the surrendered persons my groups come across, unless it's obvious they AREN'T evil. And i never kill the last guy, until we pump him for information, if the information is good i let him go. Neutrality is fun :)
+1
In general, it sounds like we're all in agreement. That may be a PF Message board first! I should get a prize! :)
I agree with what everyone is saying here, that a) it definitely isn't a "good" act, but how "bad" it is depends on more of the situational details, b) an outright shift from "good" to "neutral" isn't necessarily warranted...it depends on past behavior patterns...but the act will certainly influence potential alignment issues in the future, and c) there are certainly some law/chaos implications here as well...killing them as opposed to handing them over to local legal system definitely is on the chaotic end of the law/chaos spectrum.
Thanks to all who responded...
Your welcome. However, check this page out tomorrow morning, You might be a little premature on the agreement thing.
Ps. also just getting back, so haven't reviewed all posts yet.
Did you accept their surrender? Or did you shout back 'No Quarter' instead? If the latter, no problem. Armies do the 'no quarter' thing whenever they're ill equipped to handle prisoners. That's neutral. But if you accepted the surrender its another matter.
I think that's a very important distinction to keep in mind. Just because a surrender has been offered doesn't mean it's automatically accepted. A lot of modern real-world military/police organizations might have a policy of always accepting an unconditional surrender, but wandering adventurers usually aren't part of those groups or required to follow their rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did you accept their surrender? Or did you shout back 'No Quarter' instead? If the latter, no problem. Armies do the 'no quarter' thing whenever they're ill equipped to handle prisoners. That's neutral. But if you accepted the surrender its another matter.I think that's a very important distinction to keep in mind. Just because a surrender has been offered doesn't mean it's automatically accepted. A lot of modern real-world military/police organizations might have a policy of always accepting an unconditional surrender, but wandering adventurers usually aren't part of those groups or required to follow their rules.
As I pointed out, and not that it necessarily applies to the world of Golarion, but in OUR world the refussal to accept an unconditional surrender is an international war crime. It is considered to be so awful that major international powers signed a treaty agreeing that they wouldn't do that.
Further, an evil character that claims to have surrendered is still a threat.
Not necessarily true. Just because they don't value other people's lives doesn't mean they don't value theirs - in fact, most evil characters tend to value their own skins quite highly. If they believe they can't get away with it and think captivity beats the alternative, they have as good reason to play nice as everyone.
As I pointed out, and not that it necessarily applies to the world of Golarion, but in OUR world the refussal to accept an unconditional surrender is an international war crime. It is considered to be so awful that major international powers signed a treaty agreeing that they wouldn't do that.Did you accept their surrender? Or did you shout back 'No Quarter' instead? If the latter, no problem. Armies do the 'no quarter' thing whenever they're ill equipped to handle prisoners. That's neutral. But if you accepted the surrender its another matter.I think that's a very important distinction to keep in mind. Just because a surrender has been offered doesn't mean it's automatically accepted. A lot of modern real-world military/police organizations might have a policy of always accepting an unconditional surrender, but wandering adventurers usually aren't part of those groups or required to follow their rules.
True, though as stated Golarion might not play by those rules. I rather doubt that Orcs, Demons, and Goblins follow the Geneva Convention. One could also question whether treaties about surrender and treatment of POW's were motivated by morality or pragmatism. Reciprocity has always been the foundation of international law, after all.
I always play pretty light with the alignment in my game unless it has a mechanical benefit/drawback I need to worry about. The only time it even matters is if you are a Paladin or you are the target of a smite.
1. Alignment should be a gradual change unless they do something unspeakable... like sell their soul to a devil or go on a mass murder of innocents or something.
2. People(DMs and posters here) tend to focus on the evil acts and ignore all the good things the player has done. As pointed out. If your playing a normal adventurer then you have dont alot of good things and will continue to do so. Even if you kill every surrendered evil villian you come across I dout it would change your alignment considering all the good you do.
3. Who cares if it does. RP your character the way you want. If the DM says your Evil then so be it. When you turn around and do good things (open an orphanage or something) and the DM is surprised just let him know that you dont consider the character evil and will RP him as you see fit.
As a DM I wont change someone's alignment unless they commit blatant evil acts on a consistant basis. And I will warn them ahead of time... usually more than once. As for killing surrendered enemies... this isnt real life. Its fantasy. I would say its a neutral to slightly evil act that would barely register either way.
I'd say their justification makes it an evil act. Giving in to the wrath and slaughtering though who have surrendered is evil. Not something that would shift the alignment, not yet a least. Too much of this type of behavior could shift them from good To neutral over a period of time.
True, though as stated Golarion might not play by those rules. I rather doubt that Orcs, Demons, and Goblins follow the Geneva Convention. One could also question whether treaties about surrender and treatment of POW's were motivated by morality or pragmatism. Reciprocity has always been the foundation of international law, after all.As I pointed out, and not that it necessarily applies to the world of Golarion, but in OUR world the refussal to accept an unconditional surrender is an international war crime. It is considered to be so awful that major international powers signed a treaty agreeing that they wouldn't do that.Did you accept their surrender? Or did you shout back 'No Quarter' instead? If the latter, no problem. Armies do the 'no quarter' thing whenever they're ill equipped to handle prisoners. That's neutral. But if you accepted the surrender its another matter.I think that's a very important distinction to keep in mind. Just because a surrender has been offered doesn't mean it's automatically accepted. A lot of modern real-world military/police organizations might have a policy of always accepting an unconditional surrender, but wandering adventurers usually aren't part of those groups or required to follow their rules.
I agree that Orcs, Goblins, Demons, and slew of other things probably wouldn't agree to such constraints. These races are also wholesale presented as evil.
Is is not both pragmatic and good for both sides to agree that killing prisoners is wrong? Good characters, despite their enemy not giving the same courtesy, might still do this because it spares lives. Life is something that good holds sacred, even evil life as it might be redeemed. Only the iredeemable should be discarded, and even then not callously.
A neutral character would be inclined to agree to the Geneva convention if only because it is pragmatic.
Evil might agree to Geneva convention, but would probably act against it anyways and try to hide their actions to gain benefit without repurcussion. Else, they would simply disagree with it from the beginning and always murder everyone.
I have been in a group of two monks, a rogue, and two casters before where our way into a dungeon was surrendering and taking it out from the inside.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds like an alignment expectations issue.
The GM sounds like they are trying to run a traditional D&D-esque fantasy game with the Pathfinder-updated alignment scales.
It sounds like at least one of the players is trying to have a more "real world / grey scale” alignment for their soldier character.
Pathfinder is not a “grey scale” game at its heart, which annoys some people to no end. Alignment is, however, very hardwired into the system, and requires some effort to remove without losing a lot of the thematic elements of the game (especially when it comes to extra planar opponents, paladins, clerics, and alignment spells). If you are concerned about role-playing purity, though, go with what you think your character would do, but remember that just because your character doesn’t think they are evil or that they are committing an evil act that doesn’t mean that they aren’t – in Pathfinder Good & Evil are absolutes, not moral justification that comes from self-analysis (and this is coming from someone who likes playing for Team Evil).
I’d recommend talking out of game a bit more about alignment & role-playing expectations before your next game session so that this doesn’t devolve into bitterness and a shattered gaming group.
-TimD
I have been in a group of two monks, a rogue, and two casters before where our way into a dungeon was surrendering and taking it out from the inside.
I would definitely consider that to be an evil act. Sneaky, cunning, brilliant, and evil.
And the people you were fighting were either not evil, or very dumb.
|
YOU ARE THE GM. Nuff said.
However, it is always better to clarify the GM's take on alignments before the game begins and if necessary discuss it with the players. Much like a houserule really.
In my world, their act shows a disrespect for life, but that is only minor evil to me. I guess that the minions were not obviously innocent people dragged in this by misunderstanding or threats. If the PCs could honestly believe that the minions were innocent, then it becomes a major evil act IMO.
I feel that it is more on the Chaotic side, since I guess that tradition holds that you spare enemies who surrender (at least until they are judged).
Note however that the PCs do not exist in a void. Once word gets out (and it will in due time) that they kill enemies who surrendered, they will likely find common people and good or lawful NPCs giving them a cold shoulder. And any enemy will fight to the death or flee (with his loot and XPs BTW) rather than confront them.
All that said, and after reading your posts in this thread, I feel that your take on Good is too strict. It might be attained by PCs, but real people would never be able to stay Good with your rules.
+1How does redemption ever happen if those that are evil are simply put to the sword for it?I somewhat disagree. If the enemies were undoubtedly evil, and the group KNEW it, then the Chaotic Good was spot on. Chaotic good is willing to and going to do good, regardless of "rules". therefor the bads have to die, period. Thats why he is chaotic. He didnt torture them, and drag it out, he killed them in combat while, yes helpless, but evil.
Neutral good kind of has a skinny little leg to stand on, where they generally follow "rules" but are not 100% beholden to them, so in theory, he could kill in the way a chaotic good would, but if he does it all the time, then he risks a shift towards chaotic. Neutral is just that, middle of the road.
I know this, because i am often one of these types as i usually play chaotic neutral. I will usually kill about 80% of the surrendered persons my groups come across, unless it's obvious they AREN'T evil. And i never kill the last guy, until we pump him for information, if the information is good i let him go. Neutrality is fun :)
true redemption is sought out before a life or death situation "causes you to have second thoughts" Now sure, you can try to force someone to redeem themselves, but in the wacky worls of swords and spells, when your hero is on an epic quest faced with a group of enemies that are decidely evil, after a thorough trouncing they suddenly want to surrender to repent? Not buying it. They were decidedly evil after all. Them being left alive behind me can cause serious issues later. Best to deal ith thme here and now. BUT to also answer your question, this redemption, is a lawful good concept in my opinion and i am sure, many others. A Chaotic good, doesnt give a crap if you "suddenly want to repent" you were losing, logic dictates you were and are my enemy trying to trick me, you die. CG does not hold to the ideal of repention, if they do they should be lawful that allows for these things. If one of the aforementioned persons was a paladin, yea, you fcked up, LG? yea you F'd up, but they werent. They were chaotic and neutral. No code of chivalry to stand by. Grab a headstone and bury em if you have time, as they died with honor, but they are still going to die.
Tim, I think you hit the nail on the head there. As a player, I find it just a little too mickey mouse to game in a world where all the bad guys are irredeemably bad and all the good guys are super Clorox-shiny good. As a player, I find it ludicrous to expect a grown person to just flip aggression on and off like a light switch. This kind of cookie cutter world allows Paladins to just detect evil and smite away. So I just need to accept that by these rules, my character is some shade of evil (even though he protects his friends, helps others in need who are not evil, and would never kill an innocent) and move on. I don't want to wreck a gaming group over this, but if it suits them to refer to my character as "evil" of some variety, then have at it. The character will detect as evil and won't be able to wield a holy sword, but he's not going to start murdering innocents or eating babies.