In many a Pathfinder game you will find that life is something that seems to come to and end quite often. Good characters often have to slaughter their enemies, but I wondered where this factors on people's interpretation of the alignment rulings. Say that a lawful good character has to kill an enemy, which is giving him a hard time. Would carving his opponent in half, or even tearing at him with his bare hands cause any qualms regarding his alignment, if it meant destroying an opponents beyond atonement. Also, are there any weapons considered unethical, for example something that may convey unnecessary brutality?
well if the enemy poses a threat, even when stabilized again/possibility of going to prison (such as a super hight level spell caster, or someone who always manages to get out of sticky situations), then pre-emptively killing someone who has hard evidence of these characteristics is probably okay.
really, it matters whether or not you are able to stabilize the evil dude (if he's not dead yet), if you are able to do it given the circumstances (your about to die, so you can't waste the action), and if it matters if the enemy lives and is imprisoned (guy that will manage to hatch evil plots after being imprisoned, possibly even escape and cause great harm to the world/society).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess a lot of alignment issues are down to your GM, rules can't be made for every situation.
This gets brought up a lot. You could probably do a search and find enough supply of these threads to answer your every question.
For the most part, good people don't want to tear others apart, so a simple killing blow to end the threat is enough for most of us. I would say that a person who needs to then rend the corpse into little pieces may or may not have an issue with alignment, but at least has an issue with some sort of anger or mental disorder.
Yes, some people might look at a particular weapon and deem it too nasty or unrefined, or even brutal for their alignment. I can see that, and even agree with it in some cases. On the other hand, dead is dead. So really, I would categorize something that prolonged pain, rather than killing outright, as fitting that category.
In general, despite what some here will likely try to tell you, prolonging pain is pretty much NOT the act of a good person. That's a universal given for most of us. Frankly, I worry about the posters here that try to hem-haw against that argument. But then, I doubt they are torturing or killing anybody in real life, so I guess it doesn't hurt anything to let them have their (admittedly twisted) fantasies.
Finally, I personally object to using the word "slaughter" where "kill" fits better. An honorable fighter or soldier who simply kills his opponent and when necessary is not "slaughtering" anybody. To slaughter really means to use traditional means of killing an animal for food, but its modern connotation implies somebody is viciously (and perhaps unnecessarily) running around brutally slashing anybody he sees into bits.
If you wish to speak about brutal people killing indiscriminately, use "slaughter." If you're talking about a soldier fighting honorably, use "kill."
Per RAW, under Additional Rules of Core, the Good-Evil axis are only dependent on how a character interacts with 'innocent life'. That is to say, if the life isn't innocent, then good characters can torture, deceive, and debase the non-innocent life.
But yes, I think ultimately alignment is up to the players and the GM.
I'm sorry. You're going to have to cite page number where by RAW a Good character can torture, deceive or debase anybody.
Debasement is not a good act. Torture is not a good act, though some here may argue that good characters may sometimes be forgiven for believing they need to torture to get information in extenuating circumstances. I don't, but I understand the argument. Deception on the field of battle is a given, and most classes cannot be penalized for minor deceptions that get them out of trouble. But a life of repeated deception is not the life of a Good person.
I find its best to conpartmentalize things into combat and post combat. What this means that once the fighting starts unless external rp issues like gods or such change it good guys are under no obligation to stoo trying to kill the bad guys. Basically as long as the other guy is trying to kill you the games alignment system offers no judgement on simply killing your opponent.
However if they call for surender that changes things. Once it moves to I have full control of a. Reatures life the alignment can play more of a role.
I don't thi k alignment has anything to say about any non magic weapon just how its applied.
It can have a lot to say when magic weapons are involved.
I'm sorry. You're going to have to cite page number where by RAW a Good character can torture, deceive or debase anybody.
I was trying to answer the OP's question with the text on Good-Evil alignment and killing enemies on the battlefield.
I read "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." So, as far as I understand, if the Good character is brutally slaughtering a non-innocent enemy, then it's okay.
That said, a lot of alignment arguments seem to be a big gray zone. I tend to be lax on alignment, and if my Good PC wants to kill Evil enemies using torture tools, I don't nitpick.
Your argument is incredibly dubious. It follows no logic. It begs the question as to what is the motive for the good creature to engage in such acts, and then ignores the ultimate question of whether or not engaging in those acts actually shifts the character from good to evil. The argument becomes paradoxical, a circle. That implies your answer is nothing more than one of convenience.
We don't merely risk damage to others when we torture or prolong pain. We risk something to ourselves. I think that is the main thing missed in these alignment discussions, but it actually should be the thing we most keep in mind. We too often reduce the question to one of how the other guy feels, or worse, simply to the act itself. We forget our own motives. We forget that our characters are supposed to have souls. And souls can become damaged by our own behavior (in the game, anyway; in real life we are talking about our psyches). This is why our military teaches a code of conduct. It is why countries get together and compose conventions of war to outline what conduct is acceptable. It is because somebody who indulges in awful behavior, for whatever reason, risks becoming a dangerous civilian when he is finally released into the population. Indulging in awful behavior CHANGES us.
Now, personally, I find your last comment a tad frightening. You should understand that killing your enemy through torture is wrong on your most human, elemental level. You should just know it, instinctively. But either way, once you begin to understand what I have written above, the question of whether or not torturing somebody with a knife just to kill them becomes much clearer. Clearly, it is not a good act. Clearly, it threatens the fabric of what constitutes the character. Just as it would a real person in real life.
In real life, good people must be forced to harm others. People who do so freely and take their time doing so, rather than simply ending it, are questionable in their morality, at best. You would not argue against that in a court of law. Arguing against it here is just a convenience provided by the game.