| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Often times players (and GMs) look at problems like this with a modern day moral, which is just as bad a thing as assuming that characters know everything about hygiene and science that is seen as common knowledge nowadays.
What you can do in such a situation depends on your options and on your status.
You could:
- Cast an arcane symbol or brand on his face and tell him that his life is forfeit if he is ever seen doing bad things with this mark on him.
- chain him to a sign post and tell someone to go fetch the guard (it seems to have been in a market place). Then go on your way.
- if your status supports that you could execute him. Like if you are a paladin or inquisitor of dammerich, the god of executions.
- take off his sword hand, heal him up so he doesn't die of it and let him go.
- tell him that you can't let him go. So it's fight on (most likely one on one in that case) or die on his knees.
I once had a similar problem while playing a paladin of the god of law in AD&D. We were about to enter a dungeon full of evil stuff when we were attacked by evil cultists bent on killing us. One of them surrendered. We could not deliver him to the authorities because they were some days walk away and our duty was urgent. We could not take him down into the dungeon and we could not leave chained because he would either be freed or (should something befall us) he would die.
So in the end I decided to hold a field trial, condemned him to death for his deeds and executed him personally. Another party member suggested that he could take that burden but I declined because I was the champion of law and if someone had to do it that was clearly me.
After he was dead I buried him under a pile of stones, spoke a prayer for his soul and awaited my god's reaction.
Our GM thought about it and decided that this action was ok under those circumstances and we went on our way, doing our duty by rooting out the evil in the dungeon.
The problem with accepting surrender is generally practical in nature. Once outside easy reach of the proper authorities in cities and towns, a surrendered prisoner will mean certain problems. You will have to allot someone to watch him and you will need to provide enough food for the prisoner to survive. Taking him into dangerous situations unarmed can be pretty much murder anyway, and besides, risky. That said, it can be doable, if you have some reason to believe the surrender is real. Such things would be anything that shows the person values his word, respects the surrender of others, that he was forced to fight against his will somehow, or the like.
Sum total: A group of neutral people could probably kill someone who surrendered to them without worrying too much. A good group might also do it, but there would be a gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands involved, and it might be a stain on their alignments, particularly if they did not take a minimum of time to weigh the matter. It's never something you can rely on.
Back in the days "an eye for an eye" was seen as an improvement because until that came up punishments were often much harsher than the crimes.
Nowadays an eye for an eye is seen as barbaric and frowned upon if it is used in some parts of the world.
Now the fantasy worlds we play in should not use our moral but the one fitting for the social structure level they have. As such an eye for an eye would be a mild punishment and, because of that, killing someone who wanted to kill you would be acceptable. Even if he surrenders.
As such the dishonourable way would be to just kill someone on his knees. But to tell him to defend himself so that he at least doesn't die in shame should not be as bad as many here make it.
Now I can understand some of that if you are Lawful Good, but what if you are Chaotic Good? Why do I have to follow laws or some legality if I'm also chaotic.
Take Han Solo for example. I think it would depend on the situation on whether he took a prisoner or not, and how much he trusted that prisoner to stab him in the back or not.
I suppose knocking them out and chaining them to the ground in hope that we either get to them later or they free themselves eventually would work...
But then, if you take the "Han shot first" idea, I don't think that a good guy necessarily has to accept a surrender depending on the circumstances.
But... Greedo missed... Didn't he?
Shooting someone before they can shoot you isn't the same as killing someone who is helpless and at your mercy. I'm not sure if Han could maintain his 'lovable rogue' status doing that.
Mal from Firefly killing that prisoner who threatened bloody vengeance would be a better example.
There is good and there is evil, and they are objective. Same with law and chaos.You have what YOU think good and evil are. That is your subjective view. Suicide bombers don't think they're doing the will of satan and going to hell.
I'm not talking about the real world. I'm talking about Pathfinder.
In Pathfinder Good and Evil are objective.
The opinion of one, or even a thousand, people have no power to change what is Good/Evil or Law/Chaos.
Smack him with the flat of the blade and knock him out or use the hackmaster approach with the knight errant. You get one last swing in and if the person was unarmed and wearing robes or was wearing weak armor he is obviously a mage and/or illusionist and killing is the appropriate action as the person is clearly trying to trick you so they can stab you in the back as soon as your back is turned. You can also ask for terms for surrender, throw their weapon as far as they can away from you, remove their armor and any bags, remove clothing as they may be hiding pesky daggers etc.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neither good nor lawful needs to accept surrender though many of them will. if honor is the issue you can easily refuse the surrender and tell them to defend themselves, especially if they started the fight. Nothing dishonorable about crushing a foe that attacks without provocation.
Neither good nor lawful needs to accept surrender though many of them will. if honor is the issue you can easily refuse the surrender and tell them to defend themselves, especially if they started the fight. Nothing dishonorable about crushing a foe that attacks without provocation.
Looking at the OP and I don't see anything about being attacked without provocation.
Are you saying that this is a special case?
Contrary to what a lot of people are saying, you CAN actually kill a prisoner who has openly surrendered and is now begging for his life while STILL maintaining a Lawful Good alignment.
The simple truth is, it really all depends on your characters perspective.
I'd like to quickly draw your attention to the era of the Samaurai, where it was considered both HONORABLE and GOOD to cut off a prisoner's head who was defeated in battle. The fact that they are begging for his/her life is utterly irrelevant, because it really all depends on how your character views the prisoner's actions.
For example, you could say "Only cowards beg for their life, now accept your punishment and pick up your weapon, or would you truly prefer to die while begging on your knees."
Or you could go with "I am glad to hear that you are repentant, but judgment must still be dealt. I promise to make your end as swift and painless as possible."
Or you could also try "Only the Gods can forgive your misdeeds. Make peace with them now, for once I have finished taking ur life, I promise to give you a just and honest burial."
As I said before, it is ALL about perspective. All the examples I've just listed are things that a Lawfully Good character COULD do if they so wished (and it would not be against their alignment at all). The same could also be said about 'other' alignments as well.
For instance, a chaotic evil character COULD show a prisoner mercy as well (perhaps thinking that letting them live could somehow prove useful to them later on down the road).
The simple truth is this: you really shouldn't get too caught up with your character's alignment. Good characters can still do 'morally questionable' things, just as evil characters can do 'morally righteous' things.
of course, in the era of the samurai if you didn't kill them honorably in combat but still defeated them, theyd be forced to take their own life to maintain honor, so the cutting off the head bit is really a moot point.
i agree that a lawful good doesnt always have to take prisoners, however it seems pretty chaotic to tell someone that you're going to kill them because you cant spare the time to tie them up/ take them prisoner. particularly paladins of Sarenrae.
too much of this comes down to what kind of lawful good you are, and i dont believe the op said he was a paladin (but in questions of alignment they're always the first to come to mind) that said, a paladin should strive to uphold honor, duty, law, and good, thats their schtick, the one thing they do, its all they care about. i could see a paladin telling an unarmed evildoer that he needs to fight to the death honorable, and that he will be healed and fought 1v1 no matter the outcome, confident in his ability to kill them, but i dont see a paladin saying "die on your feet or on your knees" or "i pray for your soul *beheads*" thats just not the actions a paladin should take (again, their are exceptions, like paladins of Ragathiel (i think is how its spelled)) a paladin is to go out of his way to uphold just laws, and i cant think of any law against murdering an unarmed prisoner that ISNT just.
"I accept your surrender...but I do not accept your lives."
(Totally a "Richard" move though)
"From the moment you tried to take my life you forfeited yours. Stand and let us finish this fight. Righteous might will determine who lives today."
that one is a little bit more paladin-esqu
There's a really fine line between murdering a surrendered foe and executing said surrendered foe.
Much like obscenity, it's one of those "you'll know it when you see it" deals.
Motive plays a lot into it.
"I'm killing him because taking prisoners is too much of a hassle" and "I'm killing him because we're supposed to kill him" arrive at the same conclusion in different ways.
There's a really fine line between murdering a surrendered foe and executing said surrendered foe.
Much like obscenity, it's one of those "you'll know it when you see it" deals.
Motive plays a lot into it.
"I'm killing him because taking prisoners is too much of a hassle" and "I'm killing him because we're supposed to kill him" arrive at the same conclusion in different ways.
What if it's, "I'm killing him because he does not deserve to live"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if it's, "I'm killing him because he does not deserve to live"?There's a really fine line between murdering a surrendered foe and executing said surrendered foe.
Much like obscenity, it's one of those "you'll know it when you see it" deals.
Motive plays a lot into it.
"I'm killing him because taking prisoners is too much of a hassle" and "I'm killing him because we're supposed to kill him" arrive at the same conclusion in different ways.
What if it's, "Taking him prisoner till we reach someone we can pass him off puts myself and the party at undue risk in our most holy of missions?"
... Heck if there are no authorities around you might just hand them over to the local people to adjudicate justice as they see fit. ..Hmm... I am trying to remember if there are any cultures that have considered handing people over to the mob to do with as they will was considered honorable.
.
.
.
I'm not an expert, but I can't think of any. There were times and places where it often happened, however I don't think it was considered honorable.
Didn't Iron Man do that to a guy in the first movie? It seemed pretty honorable to me at the time I watched it. Maybe not, but it certainly didn't seem rampantly dishonorable.
Also, just because someone's surrendered doesn't mean they don't deserve punishment, but the non-evil way tends to involve a trial first.
I'd say there's nothing evil about killing a surrendered outlaw. Legally they don't have rights.
Also, just because someone's surrendered doesn't mean they don't deserve punishment, but the non-evil way tends to involve a trial first.I'd say there's nothing evil about killing a surrendered outlaw. Legally they don't have rights.
Legality doesn't really have much to do with evil/good. That's more a law/chaos thing.
I think an important thing to realize here is that characters aren't flat, they don't ALWAYS do one thing, a lawful good person does not go their entire life and never do anything selfish, or anything unlawful. it's unrealistic to expect every character to be a paragon of alignment accuracy.
So yes, your character may very well do a "non good" action if the situation calls for it, and he'd still be good after all.
|
Also, just because someone's surrendered doesn't mean they don't deserve punishment, but the non-evil way tends to involve a trial first.I'd say there's nothing evil about killing a surrendered outlaw. Legally they don't have rights.
Law can be indicate whether an action is right or wrong (because most criminal laws are among other things an expression of community ethical standards--Chaoseffect's statement above is supported by the real world traditional treatment of pirates and unlawful combatants. I would add that the point of a trial is generally to consider whether the people were really guilty or whether there are extenuating circumstances such as coercion. Taking such things into consideration would be necessary for non-evil characters(and Golarion/Pathfinder offer magical means of coercion not available in the real world). However a formal trial (even of the drumhead variety) would probably fall under the law/chaos axis in Pathfinder).
However just because it is legal doesn't mean that it is not evil. Even in enlightened societies, lots of evil things are still legal. In Golarion where we don't have to argue that lots of societies are actually evil of one variety or another, it is certain that evil things are frequently legal. It certainly could be evil to kill a surrendering outlaw. A lot depends on why he is an outlaw and why the character is killing him. (For a real world example of a situation very similar to ones that can come up in Pathfinder where it would be evil to kill surrendering outlaws, there was a scene in the (based on a true story) film Machine Gun Preacher where a group of LRA child soldiers surrendered to the title character and his SPLA allies. As LRA "soldiers" carrying AK47s, they are at least very close to the outlaw category but it would certainly have been evil to gun them down).
Also, while technically an outlaw has no rights (at least in most legal traditions that used outlawry), outlaw and bandit are not necessarily the same. One can be a bandit without being an outlaw (bandits who have not been caught or identified usually fall into that category) or an outlaw without being a bandit.
There is obviously wiggle room, because a rulebook cannot define good in 7 sentences. Every aspect of good implied in that rule can be interpreted by an individual.
I find that a lot of books are like people, torture them enough and they'll say anything.
You're still assuming that YOUR interpretation of the words in the definition of good is absolute, but it is not.There is good and there is evil, and they are objective. Same with law and chaos.You have what YOU think good and evil are. That is your subjective view. Suicide bombers don't think they're doing the will of satan and going to hell.I'm not talking about the real world. I'm talking about Pathfinder.
In Pathfinder Good and Evil are objective.
The opinion of one, or even a thousand, people have no power to change what is Good/Evil or Law/Chaos.
Incorrect.
I'm saying that the people who say that good/evil is a matter of perspective are wrong in the Pathfinder universe. Good/Evil and Law/Chaos are real and objective. They are forces that are universal constants, like the mass of an electron or the value of Pi.
|
You're still assuming that YOUR interpretation of the words in the definition of good is absolute, but it is not.There is good and there is evil, and they are objective. Same with law and chaos.You have what YOU think good and evil are. That is your subjective view. Suicide bombers don't think they're doing the will of satan and going to hell.I'm not talking about the real world. I'm talking about Pathfinder.
In Pathfinder Good and Evil are objective.
The opinion of one, or even a thousand, people have no power to change what is Good/Evil or Law/Chaos.Incorrect.
I'm saying that the people who say that good/evil is a matter of perspective are wrong in the Pathfinder universe. Good/Evil and Law/Chaos are real and objective. They are forces that are universal constants, like the mass of an electron or the value of Pi.
The difference is that the mass of an electron or the value of Pi can be calculated and agreed upon without subjectivity.
Good and evil cannot. Show me the "good formula" and the "evil equation," that proves your personal judgement of "good" and "evil" is more valid than mine.
In-universe, within a single game/world, good and evil are objective... but this varies with every single player and GM who has ever played the game. You cannot declare "X act is good in all games of Pathfinder" and "Z act is evil in all games of Pathfinder" because of the fact that each of those two games is overseen by a different omnipotent arbiter (the GM), and those arbiters disagree what constitutes evil or good.
Just because two characters in the same game have the exact same "this is good, this is evil" ruling to abide by, doesn't mean a different two characters in a different game have entirely and completely different "rules" of morality and alignment to uphold.
A few alternatives that may be possible with some of the higher level spells that might allow you to "deal with the baddy later"
-Enchantment spells (particularly compulsions). Geas, lesser geas, amark of justice, and suggestion can all pretty much make a guy stay in place until you're ready to deal with them. It's expensive, but if you've got a helm of opposite alignment handy, you could hit 'em with that. And of course, you could give them a choice of death or submission to these effects (only taking surrender if they willingly submit to your geases)
-Polymorph effects. Baleful polymorph and stone to flesh (plus shrink item for the later if transportation is needed) make for good temporary nonlethal solutions.
-Icy Crystal Teleport- Provided you have some sort of prison facility you are "very familiar with", this spell might be feasible to use on your would-be prisoner, just cast to so as to slam dunk the felon into one of your jail cells.
-For the highest level options, imprisonment or trap the soul might be options.
-Magic Jar their bodies and use them for infiltration. Of course, this would require somebody else to guard your body.
Perhaps more practical, do you have other allies close by you can dump the surrendering party upon while you go do your thing? Letting them dealing with it might be an option if you're not in a situation to be able to.
You're still assuming that YOUR interpretation of the words in the definition of good is absolute, but it is not.There is good and there is evil, and they are objective. Same with law and chaos.You have what YOU think good and evil are. That is your subjective view. Suicide bombers don't think they're doing the will of satan and going to hell.I'm not talking about the real world. I'm talking about Pathfinder.
In Pathfinder Good and Evil are objective.
The opinion of one, or even a thousand, people have no power to change what is Good/Evil or Law/Chaos.Incorrect.
I'm saying that the people who say that good/evil is a matter of perspective are wrong in the Pathfinder universe. Good/Evil and Law/Chaos are real and objective. They are forces that are universal constants, like the mass of an electron or the value of Pi.
The difference is that the mass of an electron or the value of Pi can be calculated and agreed upon without subjectivity.
Good and evil cannot. Show me the "good formula" and the "evil equation," that proves your personal judgement of "good" and "evil" is more valid than mine.
In the world of Pathfinder they can. Detect Evil will detect what the universe has deemed Evil - no matter the opinion of the person casting the spell.
A spell with the [Evil] descriptor is evil and can't be cast by a cleric of good alignment, despite any personal justification on the part of the cleric.
Protection from Law will work against a Chaotic Good character even if that character disagrees that they are chaotic.
Good/Evil and Law/Chaos simply are in the world of Pathfinder.
That's what objective means.
|
|
@The Morphling - I don't think you followed what Democratus was saying; the things you pointed out to him as not being the case are things he didn't say, and the things you asserted yourself are not in conflict with what he did say.
That would be because he is repeating the same thing every six or seven posts, with the same statement of "ALIGNMENT IS OBJECTIVE" and neglecting to provide any additional information or commentary.
My post did not directly contradict his, but it was intended to point out why saying "ALIGNMENT IS OBJECTIVE" does not invalidate a discussion about alignment and morality on forums used by players of multiple games, between which alignment is decidedly not objective (even if it is objective within said games).
Having followed this discussion I can honestly say that in General: Not accepting surrender after someone declares it is an evil act, as is shouting/declaring 'no quarter given' at the start of the battle.
Are there exceptions on this general rule? Yes and a lot were given. But the only general way to not accept surrender without becoming evil is forcing/allowing your surrendering opponent to flee.
Are there exceptions to these general rules??? Yes
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@The Morphling - I don't think you followed what Democratus was saying; the things you pointed out to him as not being the case are things he didn't say, and the things you asserted yourself are not in conflict with what he did say.That would be because he is repeating the same thing every six or seven posts, with the same statement of "ALIGNMENT IS OBJECTIVE" and neglecting to provide any additional information or commentary.
My post did not directly contradict his, but it was intended to point out why saying "ALIGNMENT IS OBJECTIVE" does not invalidate a discussion about alignment and morality on forums used by players of multiple games, between which alignment is decidedly not objective (even if it is objective within said games).
That's the thing; he wasn't saying that it's objective between games, only that (as you say yourself) it's objective within a given game.
He was refuting some posters who claimed that even within a single game, alignment is subjective based on how individual characters choose to justify their actions.
Basically, the things you've actually stated are precisely in line with what he's saying, yet framed as a rebuttal, thereby proving you didn't understand what he was saying.
"X is the case."
"No it's not, X is!"
Reminds me of an old dragon article that LG is not lawful stupid.
A paladin is divine authority. Executing evil minions removes those evil minions from the equation.
Old TSR logic may no longer be valid. I don't want to be that: 'In my day, we always executed evil minions and beams of sunlight bathed us'--but executions had their place.