| 7 people 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.
Here's what I tell people in my games.
Play what you want, but put what you want to play on paper.
If you want to play a guy who is lawful, and loyal to his friends, but shows no mercy to enemies, then play Lawful Neutral. Because that is what you are describing.
If you want to play someone who reluctantly takes up arms, and does the best he can to protect others and act with some dignity and obey laws when they don't conflict with that, then play Neutral Good.
If you want to play the sterling example of honor and justice who helps the poor and defends the week and does what is right no matter what, play Lawful Good.
If you want to play the guy who is a pragmatist, who does whatever is best for him and his own, then play Neutral Neutral.
If you want to play the guy who is a pragmatist, and does whatever he wants, whenever he wants, then play Chaotic Neutral.
But whatever you want to play, your character sheet better reflect it, or I'll switch your alignment to it in game, regardless of what you have written. And if you pick a class with an alignment restriction (barbarian, monk, paladin, cleric) then I'll restrict powers based on the character's actual alignment, not what is put on your character sheet.
Anyone can play any character they want, just put down the mechanics that fit the character. If you want to be the guy who says "No, I do not accept your surrender because you might cause me problems later", then don't play a Good character. Good is hard. It's not meant to be easy. Lawful is harder than chaotic too. If you don't want to be restricted, play chaotic.
Your early stated concept doesn't sound NG, it sounds LN. So play that alignment. Why can't people put down what they want ot play, why do people want to make the alignment system something it isn't? It's not a straight jacket unless you choose to make it one. Don't want to play a LG knight in shining armor, don't play a paladin. Want to play a hard nosed, by the book melee guy? Don't play a Barbarian.
Want to be able to kill surrendered enemies because they might, possibly, be faking? Don't play Good. Want to steal from orphans because hey, they might be evil goblins in disguise? Don't play lawful.
It really is as simple as that.
Yeah, too back up Kalshane, most people here seem to agree the action your character has either commited or plans to commit Aravandor is evil. However, I think most also agree that this act only isn't enough to shift your alignment. As a GM I would certainly let you know my view of the act in terms of alignment and ask if you wanted to complete the action, giving you room to decide. Even if you choose to commit the action it should only have a minor affect on its own.
From the PRD, Ultimate Campaign Alignment system:
When a character performs an action that is out of character for his listed alignment, the GM decides whether the action is enough to shift the character's alignment on the appropriate alignment track, and if so by how much. Executing a captured orc combatant so the PCs don't have to haul it to a distant prison may only be 1 step toward evil; torturing a hostage for information may be 2 steps. For minor infractions, the GM can just issue a warning that further actions will cause a shift on the alignment track. Extreme, deliberate acts, such as burning down an orphanage full of children just for the fun of it, should push the character fully into that alignment, regardless of the character's original position on the alignment track.
So you're character may still be good, and before you become evil you will certianly pass through neutral. You have a long way to fall before you hit evil. But yes, you probably should accept that if you keep killing surrendered enemies that you are evil.
Edit: MDT, everything you said, a million times over! Again again! Encore! Bravo!
<3
In Medievel Society there was also the option of ransoming the captives back to their side.
If the BBEG were to gain the upper hand would the PC's consider surrendering and hope for ransom from their side?..Also a captive badguy could be swapped for a PC or other "good" person who may be captive.
At the very least the captives are a source of information, possible revenue thru ransoming or can be held by local authorities for a future prisoner swap.
If these are common occurrences in the fantasy world then outright killing of prisoner should be rare except in the case of truly evil races such as Orcs or devil worshippng cannibals, etc. Among civilized cultures it should be somewhat common.
That's all fine and good, mdt. And as soon as everyone has a perfect understanding of what everyone else's idea of alignment X is, then we'll have no problems. If you had asked me a few days ago if killing an enemy or two moments after a surrender was going to shift a Neutral or Chaotic Good alignment, I'd say "No way! We're the good guys, those guys are bad, we're here to clean up old Korvosa, of course it's ok if a few of them meet their maker early. They attacked us first, after all." So, no, mdt I'd say that it's not so really simple at all.
|
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.Here's what I tell people in my games.
Play what you want, but put what you want to play on paper.
If you want to play a guy who is lawful, and loyal to his friends, but shows no mercy to enemies, then play Lawful Neutral. Because that is what you are describing.
If you want to play someone who reluctantly takes up arms, and does the best he can to protect others and act with some dignity and obey laws when they don't conflict with that, then play Neutral Good.
If you want to play the sterling example of honor and justice who helps the poor and defends the week and does what is right no matter what, play Lawful Good.
If you want to play the guy who is a pragmatist, who does whatever is best for him and his own, then play Neutral Neutral.
If you want to play the guy who is a pragmatist, and does whatever he wants, whenever he wants, then play Chaotic Neutral.
But whatever you want to play, your character sheet better reflect it, or I'll switch your alignment to it in game, regardless of what you have written. And if you pick a class with an alignment restriction (barbarian, monk, paladin, cleric) then I'll restrict powers based on the character's actual alignment, not what is put on your character sheet....
I agree completely with this. With the caveat that the GM should explain his understanding of the alignments to the players beforehand AND be open to discuss it ;-)
I always use a system of "Good/Evil points" in my games, and I would recommend any DM to use and keep track of it (The one in Ultimate campaign works nicely).
In a case like this I would give both players an evil point regardless of their reasons, one evil point will not change an alignment, and allows the players to be pliable towards their alignment, it also promotes "good" play during or outside combat, a Good character can do an evil act, get an evil point, then spend a week of subsequent free time (downtime) to feed the poor (or just help people in general) and raise his good score.
This may seem like a cheat than enables good characters to be good and still do evil acts, but remember that you can always award several evil points of repeated or significant offences, and good people doing good acts to feel better after doing an evil act is completely natural.
Also, my opinion on their arguments:
1)Its natural that a character might "be in the zone" and accidentally cut down a foe, but against this reasoning you should make them roll a perception or sense motive check (the better of the two) to realise their foes have become harmless. This way the players at least get an attempt to do the evil act "for free". Remember that you can always have a lawful good smart-ass NPC pull a "told-you-so" on them, preferably with some guards close by.
2) A good character would NEVER kill a surrendered [u]minor[/u] enemy, not even surrendered untrustworthy assassins (unless the character had a very active, often mentioned, hate for assassins, but you get the point). A neutral non-lawful character might do the slaughtering, but he'd get evil points for it.
That's all fine and good, mdt. And as soon as everyone has a perfect understanding of what everyone else's idea of alignment X is, then we'll have no problems. If you had asked me a few days ago if killing an enemy or two moments after a surrender was going to shift a Neutral or Chaotic Good alignment, I'd say "No way! We're the good guys, those guys are bad, we're here to clean up old Korvosa, of course it's ok if a few of them meet their maker early. They attacked us first, after all." So, no, mdt I'd say that it's not so really simple at all.
Nobody said doing it would shift your alignment.
They said doing it consistently would.
And no, it's still an evil act. Just because they are bad guys doesn't mean you should kill them out of hand when they surrender.
Let me ask you this, would the Evil people kill you if you surrendered?
If the answer is yes, then perhaps you should think about what it means that your Good characters are performing the same Evil acts that Evil people do without a qualm?
If you want to play someone who's pragmatic and not worried about doing evil, but doesn't go out of his way to be evil, play neutral.
If you want to play good, then play good, but that is not an easy thing to do, because good has to do that whole turn the other cheek and show mercy and try to redeem people and not murder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing I tell my players is, they can kill off every enemy they face. That's up to them, and I warn them about alignments from doing it.
I also warn them that they will develop a reputation for being merciless, and that once it get's big enough, no enemy will do anything other than fight to the death, because they know they won't be spared.
Most groups think it over, and decide that turning NPCs into 'will fight to death every time' enemies is a bad idea.
|
Question for Eaghen....Did the people who surrendered step back and drop their weapons?
If so then their 'threat" to the players was considerably lowered.
If characters are not raging or under a rage spell or has some type of trait/feat that gives the character sometype of 'tunnel vision' while in combat then 'in the zone' is not a good reason to continue to attack someone who is no longer an immediate threat. Using the excuse that 6 seconds isnt enough time to a judgement call in the 'heat of battle' is just that an excuse, in the rules you can do ALOT of thing in 6 seconds.
This is just my opinion
Well, you'll all be happy to know that as it turned out, with the advice of all of these paragons of virtue here, my associate and I saw the dreadful error of our ways and let them all surrender and live. We did take the opportunity to mercifully kick the teeth in of all of these normally blameless and upstanding citizens as a reminder of the time that they strayed from the righteous path. All is well and our souls are back in line with goodness and unicorns.
|
|
Well, you'll all be happy to know that as it turned out, with the advice of all of these paragons of virtue here, my associate and I saw the dreadful error of our ways and let them all surrender and live. We did take the opportunity to mercifully kick the teeth in of all of these normally blameless and upstanding citizens as a reminder of the time that they strayed from the righteous path. All is well and our souls are back in line with goodness and unicorns.
Actually, that is most definitely NOT what people here said. IIRC, most people said you should play your PCs the way you wish AND accept the consequences.
If you changed your PC's reaction due to some kind of nebulous "peer pressure", or even worse for keeping an intangible "alignment", I understand that you can be bitter.
That said, you choose your PC's actions. We don't ;-)
|
Weighing in 1 last time...
Regarding the OP - I was deliberately somewhat vague in the OP because I wanted generic responses to a generic situation. It turns out, the bad guy cronies who surrendered (@Jacob - they dropped their weapons and fell to their knees begging for mercy) were actually conscripted into service under threat of death, and were for the most part just normal guys in a bad situation. All of you who argued in favor of killing surrendered foes...the gods have taken notice :)
Regarding Alignment in my campaign - Since this is the first time in our campaign where alignment really came to the forefront, and it did so because some of the characters were showing a pattern of actions inconsistent with their alignments, and we are mostly relatively inexperienced, and as the GM I really didn't emphasize from the outset that alignment is an important factor in our campaign...I chose to allow all the characters a 1 time freebie alignment shift to whatever they wanted. I think this is really going to help us move forward in a much better way.
Regarding the way this scenario played out in my campaign - yes, 1 player character did systematically go around and kick some teeth in. I see this as consistent with a Lawful Neutral alignment (which he had switched to)...and I also see it as leaning towards the evil end of the spectrum...the gods took notice :)
Regarding this discussion in general - I believe people need to keep in mind this is an RPG game. The game mechanics are what really matter. The rulebooks of Pathfinder do a pretty good job of explaining what it means to be good, neutral, evil, lawful or chaotic in Pathfinder...particularly the Ultimate Campaign book. Sure, there's bound to be some gray area with concepts as slippery as good vs. evil, law vs. chaos. But at the end of the day, real life has nothing to do with it. You're playing a character in an RPG game. If you let real-life considerations and in particular your own feelings and/or moral compass govern your character's actions, you aren't role-playing in the game, you're just walking through game mechanics playing yourself. If there's a question, go back to the books and read what good/evil/lawful/chaotic means in Pathfinder. It makes absolutely no difference what a marine, a cop, or Ted Bundy might do...and arguments based on such real-life considerations are nothing more than rat-holes.
And one last thing. Many of you asserted that an alignment change precipitated by incongruent actions doesn't carry any penalties except for Paladins and a few other relatively narrow range of circumstances. According to Ultimate Campaign, any alignment shift that isn't forced (say by a cursed item) carries a 1 week duration -1 penalty to hit, AC and checks.
The character takes a —1 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, and checks because of guilt, regrets, or bad luck associated with abandoning his previous ethics. After 1 week, this penalty goes away. Note that the character is still "on the border" of his previous alignment, and later actions could make him shift back to his previous alignment, with a repeat of the 1-week penalty, so after an alignment change, it is in the character's best interest to act in accordance with that new alignment, embracing his new beliefs and philosophy. This penalty is in addition to any other consequences of changing alignment (such as becoming an ex-cleric or ex-paladin).
Just My .02
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 would say the Law/Chaos scale is going to be at least as important as the Good/Evil one for this situation. I could certainly see a Chaotic Good character killing a bad guy post surrender if the bad guy 'deserves' it, especially if the local authorities are corrupt. Vigilantes are one of the classic chaotic good concepts, after all.
By the same token, I could see a Lawful Evil bad guy accepting surrenders and treating prisoners decently on the pragmatic grounds that being known for accepting surrender and treating prisoners fairly will make future opponents more inclined to surrender rather than fight to the death, and ensures that if things go bad for him he'll be treated well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you'll all be happy to know that as it turned out, with the advice of all of these paragons of virtue here, my associate and I saw the dreadful error of our ways and let them all surrender and live. We did take the opportunity to mercifully kick the teeth in of all of these normally blameless and upstanding citizens as a reminder of the time that they strayed from the righteous path. All is well and our souls are back in line with goodness and unicorns.
Your attitude smacks of being a spoiled child.
I feel sorry for the OP having you in his game.
|
Seriously, no one has brought up Torag yet? His paladins and clerics are pretty famous for giving no quarter.
Innocents? Sure, they don't have anything to fear. Combatants that believe they will receive mercy if they act in a cowardly fashion once the tide turns? No quarter will be given.
Granted, a paladin of Torag likely wouldn't strike immediately after the enemy dropped their weapon. Give them a round to pick it back up again before you attack, and then you've done all you can for the poor souls.
I know neither of the characters in question are practising followers of Torag, but when a paladin can get away with it, the action should be examined a bit more closely before declaring it evil.
When this situation arose in one of my campaigns, the party spared the bandits that pleaded for their lives, but made sure to break the bones in their sword-hands. Unfortunately, pathfinder doesn't have any rules for handedness, but in-game, I thought that it made sense. The former bandits, I ruled, would be incapable of wielding weapons in their primary hands (and since they could not use their primary hands, they would be unable to wield two-handed weapons as well).
A pretty fitting punishment, I think, along with indentured servitude (another punishment levied by the party against the former bandits).
Kicking in their teeth works, too, I guess... Hope they like eating peas.
Seriously, no one has brought up Torag yet? His paladins and clerics are pretty famous for giving no quarter.
Actually, I did.
|
|
Seriously, no one has brought up Torag yet? His paladins and clerics are pretty famous for giving no quarter.
Innocents? Sure, they don't have anything to fear. Combatants that believe they will receive mercy if they act in a cowardly fashion once the tide turns? No quarter will be given.
Granted, a paladin of Torag likely wouldn't strike immediately after the enemy dropped their weapon. Give them a round to pick it back up again before you attack, and then you've done all you can for the poor souls.
I know neither of the characters in question are practising followers of Torag, but when a paladin can get away with it, the action should be examined a bit more closely before declaring it evil.
MANY people misread Torag's code (and often ignore that it is in addition to the CRB code rather than instead of it) in their need to find some "extreme bad-ass Paladin", either to celebrate it or to diss it.
As such, I would be extra careful of using it as an example of what a Paladin can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Laws change from town to town, from country to country. How to play a lawful character really depends on where the character was born.
|
|
Regarding this discussion in general - I believe people need to keep in mind this is an RPG game. The game mechanics are what really matter. The rulebooks of Pathfinder do a pretty good job of explaining what it means to be good, neutral, evil, lawful or chaotic in Pathfinder...particularly the Ultimate Campaign book. Sure, there's bound to be some gray area with concepts as slippery as good vs. evil, law vs. chaos. But at the end of the day, real life has nothing to do with it. You're playing a character in an RPG game. If you let real-life considerations and in particular your own feelings and/or moral compass govern your character's actions, you aren't role-playing in the game, you're just walking through game mechanics playing yourself. If there's a question, go back to the books and read what good/evil/lawful/chaotic means in Pathfinder. It makes absolutely no difference what a marine, a cop, or Ted Bundy might do...and arguments based on such real-life considerations are nothing more than rat-holes.
I do not agree at all with what you wrote here.
Based on my experience, each and every player AND GM has preconceived notions of what each alignment means.
That they use these notions does not mean they are "playing themselves". It just means that when they read Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil, they have a specific image in mind.
And this is true for you too ;-)
In the end, saying that everyone must adhere to the description of the alignments in the books is really only saying that everyone must follow YOUR understanding of the rules (well, why not, after all you are the GM here) AND that YOUR understanding is a universal truth that does not need to be described (since it was pretty obvious to you when you read the books).
The latter is a trap and unfair to your players as they cannot know your mind if you do not tell them in your own words and discuss it with them to clarify any misunderstanding.
And one last thing. Many of you asserted that an alignment change precipitated by incongruent actions doesn't carry any penalties except for Paladins and a few other relatively narrow range of circumstances. According to Ultimate Campaign, any alignment shift that isn't forced (say by a cursed item) carries a 1 week duration -1 penalty to hit, AC and checks.
Here's the text:
Just My .02
As anything in UCamp, this is an optional rule, so what people said is still the CRB truth. Also it is a rule I do not like at all, since it makes alignment into more of a straightjacket when it should be a help for playing your character (and not a hindrance).
When this situation arose in one of my campaigns, the party spared the bandits that pleaded for their lives, but made sure to break the bones in their sword-hands. Unfortunately, pathfinder doesn't have any rules for handedness, but in-game, I thought that it made sense. The former bandits, I ruled, would be incapable of wielding weapons in their primary hands (and since they could not use their primary hands, they would be unable to wield two-handed weapons as well).
A pretty fitting punishment, I think, along with indentured servitude (another punishment levied by the party against the former bandits).
Kicking in their teeth works, too, I guess... Hope they like eating peas.
You know, that option actually did very much occur to me. I was quite seriously considering rendering their sword hands permanently inoperable for a few minutes leading up to the next session of the game. If I were actually in the character's shoes and it was a matter of life and death, I would do just so without a doubt.
Honestly, I chose not to push in that direction after all of this debate. I've all hammered away at the issue a lot and I felt that more bellyaching on my part wouldn't achieve anything. The GM made a call and I respect that. More importantly, I think he made a very fair choice to allow all of the players one free alignment adjustment now that we've discovered and aired our differences. I understand the way that he and most other Pathfinder players seem to view alignments and right vs. wrong, so I'll make decisions with that in mind in the future. When the GM says "Ok, you can do that, but it will affect your alignment." it won't be a surprise to me.
Personally, I find the views on alignments that have been presented here a bit heavy-handed and lacking nuance. I suppose I never realized it before but I much prefer a darker, more complicated and nuanced "shades of gray" idea of good vs. evil. But as it turns out, I'm gaming in a much more "white hat", "black hat" world.
|
|
@blackraven - You've scratched the surface, but with respect I don't think you've fully understood what I wrote. Let me say it a different way. Trying to apply Pathfinder definitions of good/evil/law/chaos to real life - or vice versa - is futile because Pathfinder is not real life. Such attempts are a disservice to the gaming experience in my opinion.
I agree with what you've said...we all are going to interpret Alignment in Pathfinder slightly differently, and our preconceptions are going to color our interpretations. That's the gray area I spoke of. I just think your response is not in line with what I was actually saying.
So far as "optional" rules...aren't they all optional? :) I feel perfectly OK with bending, modifying, making my own or flat out ignoring any rule if a given circumstance warrants it. GM discretion... I just try to be fair and balanced and make the game as enjoyable as I can for my players. That's the role of a GM, no?
I'm looking for general opinions regarding a situation that recently arose in my campaign.
Big fight...a Big Bad Evil Guy, his almost-as big and bad henchman, and a large number of lower level cronies. Eventually the BBEG and his henchman go down. The cronies left alive throw down their weapons and fall to their knees in surrender.
The two melee characters in the party - 1 Neutral Good and 1 Chaotic Good - indicate they will keep swinging at their surrendered foes. I tell them this is inherently NOT a "Good" act and they could suffer alignment consequences if they proceed.
They have 2 counter arguments - 1) they're in the heat of the battle and can't just turn off the combat "juices" like a light switch, and 2) the fact that these bad guys were just trying to kill them justifies continued hacking, even after they've surrendered.
I'd say I agree with both sides of the argument. The main issue I have though is with a single act on one day calling for an alignment change. Weigh it up against their behavior in general, and see if overall it warrants a change. If this one act does anything, it should start them down the path to a possible alignment change in the future, not trigger one immediately.
If they were to kill unarmed innocents in cold blood, then I'd consider that to warrant a more immediate change, but a single grey area act during a combat shouldn't do it.
Their actions were not a good act, but a good-aligned person doesn't have to do just good acts 100% of the time. Just the majority of the time, enough to differentiate them from a neutrally-aligned person.
If, however, you accept a surrender from those who are doing so sincerely insofar as you know (and you must give the benefit of the doubt here, if there is any), coolly assess the situation over the next little while, decide to off them anyway and then carry through ... you're a cold-blooded murderer, no way around it.
Do not agree with this...if the captives are obviously murderers, bandits, criminals etc...and the party cannot deal with them as captives i.e...on a time constraint mission, etc then they should have the right to enact High Justice and execute the criminals...this should be done quickly, humanely, and the bodies buried with respect and the matter reported to the local authorities as soon as possible. I would not have a Paladin lose his powers over enacted justice over criminals and murderers after they have surrendered. As to some of the criminals/bandits who may be newcomers and may not have actually participated in the killings of innocents...to quote Gus McCrae from Lonesome Dove..."You ride with outlaws. you hang with outlaws!"
If even once a character murders someone—and killing someone whose surrender you've accepted and who has voluntarily disarmed is, like it or not, admit it or not, by definition murder—he, she or it is forevermore a murderer. Anyone with even the most rudimentary grasp of morality understands that murder, without exception, is an egregiously evil act.
The idea that premeditated murder, one of the greatest crimes known to man, an offense punishable by death in innumerable societies (even atheistic ones) and considered a sin "that cries out to Heaven" in Judeo-Christian thought, is insufficient to instantaneously change someone's alignment to evil is ... interesting. In my opinion it's specious at best, and more likely downright spurious.
Killing during war/battle is (almost always) necessary and (very often) warranted, in particular if your nation/faction is not the aggressor. (Arguably doing so when your country unjustly launched an invasion is also murder, but that's largely if not altogether another issue.) Dispatching foes when you've clearly refused them quarter is justifiable—especially in light of circumstances that have previously demonstrated their insincerity in surrendering. No good character's alignment, even that of a paladin whose code enjoins mercy, should be affected in either of the above circumstances.
Killing in the heat of passion (perhaps because you're still furious and anguish-stricken over the death of comrades-in-arms/friends when another of your party takes the surrender) is evil, but falls under the category "guilty with (perhaps extreme) extenuating circumstances." A paladin would fall from grace, though retain the possibility of redemption, while neutral good and chaotic good characters would find their alignments shifted towards, though not necessary to, neutral and chaotic neutral respectively.
If, however, you accept a surrender from those who are doing so sincerely insofar as you know (and you must...
Everyone should agree wit hthis guy.. problem is he stated "whose surrender you've accepted ". I AGREE 10000% with this, problem is, OP didnt say it was accepted. It wasn't.. thats why they killed , because"heat of the moment..blah blah blah.." end result wasn;t accepted. Thats why i say not evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "heat of the moment" excuse is quite frankly BS.
Now, if the party did not wish to accept the surrender, and they are Good aligned, they could inform their opponents of "no quarter", and give them time to pick up their weapons before fighting to the death. Perfectly acceptable, and honorable.
Or they could simply use an old common act of "parole". Order them to disarm and leave (or flee, depending on how intimidating the party is) with the understanding that if they are seen again bearing arms or in opposition to the party, that their freedom and lives are forfeit. Again, acceptable and honorable with no loss of alignment.
Killing them after they surrender, without a word, however, is an evil act, no matter how many excuses one uses to justify it.
In Pathfinder/D&D, the alignment system is a set of beliefs and code of conduct all rolled into one. Characters of all alignments can get to the same end point (all the minions dead), but what steps you take to get there is defined and limited by your alignment.
Codes of honor are lawful thinking. (Lawful-aligned people often mistake chaotic behavior for evil.)
Being good only requires that you are always concerned with the welfare of others.
If you're good but non-lawful, and have an enemy at your mercy (unconscious or surrendered - it shouldn't matter), you should ask yourself questions like:
Would killing this person make the world a better place?
Do I have enough information to make that judgement?
Would I be setting a bad example by executing my enemy?
Are there any practical alternatives that would stop him doing any more harm without resorting to murder?
Am I going to get into trouble for this?
^
Scenario. Human rogue stabs a sleeping 10 year old kid and kills him.
Most would scream evil til they were blue in the face. But what if the rogue HONESTLY believed this 10 year old was a vessel for an ancient evil force?
"who would believe that? Still evil! many of you would say. And if he WAS..... now what? Belief functions to guide the alignment shifts more then the actions alone. Only a truly horrifying EVIL BEYOND ALL DOUBT action cannot be somewhat explained away.
The path to hell was paved with good intentions. Even if he believes that the child is a vessel then its still an alignment shift. The DM hands out the alignment shifts and the DM knows if the child was evil or not.
Killing them after they surrender, without a word, however, is an evil act, no matter how many excuses one uses to justify it.
The question then becomes - should this this evil act be enough to warrant an alignment shift?
Is alignment an overall habitual gauge, or an indication of your life for the past five minutes?
I believe alignment to be the former, and that a single evil act would have to be pretty darned widespread and irredeemable (such as setting fire to an orphanage) to warrant an alignment shift in someone. Others believe alignment needs to have more immediate effects and people need to be held strictly to it as if they were all Paladins. Neither view is more valid, but - and this is the important bit - the GM should ensure the group are all on the same page when beginning play.
The way I look at it is - if someone in the past month or so has performed 20 good acts, 204 neutral acts, and 1 evil act - what alignment should they be? ;)
Gee ... if you helped 20 old ladies cross the street (good) while taking six or seven walks a day (neutral) ... and murdered the 21st old woman (evil), what alignment would you be?
Let me turn that one around on you:
If you saved 20 old ladies from death by meteor, injuring yourself in the process (good) while taking six or seven walks a day (neutral), then stole candy from a baby (evil), what alignment would you be?
What if the evil act was killing a criminal?
What if you'd helped another 200 old ladies over the past year, and hadn't committed a single evil act until now?
IMHO, Frequency, severity, and scope should count for something. Well, unless you're a Paladin. Everyone (well, unless you're a Paladin) should be able to fall from the path once in a while without it changing their entire life outlook.
It's perfectly okay for the GM to think otherwise, but it's important the group knows what alignment means and not get a nasty surprise when they're suddenly evil for stealing a gold coin.
|
|
The thing is that the balance between good and evil alignment isn't really a balance at all. There is no zero sum spreadsheet as they are unbalanced ledgers.
A person who does some good acts and the occasional, albeit semi regular, evil (little "e") acts is at best offsetting things and staying neutral. Perhaps a thief or even a legbreaker, sure he does some bad things but not terrible, and he does some good to offset things and ease his conscience. Which is really what alignment is all about.
Now, a generally good person who does a horribly Evil (big "E") act could most certainly be on his way way to a top hat and curled mustache. Or, the act would horrify them in such a way that they would seek atonement, because again, that is what alignment is. It is an ingrained set of beliefs and when you violate your deep seeded beliefs, it affects you. If it does not affect you, then it means that your beliefs have changed... thus an alignment shift.
And as was said above, good is harder than evil. Most people are decidedly neutral, going about their lives the best they can to get by, provide and protect them and theirs and to avoid trouble. Heroes are rare, whether they protect the weak, defeat evil or feed the poor. Evil, however, is much easier... evil welcomes your failings, embraces them and when you slip up, evil doesn't make you feel guilty... evil whispers in your ear not to worry about, go kick a puppy and you will feel better! Good doesn't have it that easy, when you fall from great heights it is harder to climb back up, a struggle. You don't get to simply treat it like a Column A, Column B "Rescue 20 orphans to offset the sacrificing of one virgin".