Is Killing always evil?

[bob_the_monster]

The PRD seems ambivalent about this. If you join an "evil party" but you're a low INT Barbarian defending your friends, and you slaughter 10 town guards that are pursuing your comrades, instead of "negotiating" with them as the "DM expected you would" is this really evil?

TBH I want to call this guy out as a rotten DM. Why would a Barbarian rager negotiate with the town guard? They are hunting us over a stolen sword from the next town over, planning to arrest and kill for that? Screw them. I don't care if they have an "important Paladin" with them.

Why would a CN Barbarian care what these people wanted. They point swords at me = They are dead.

[Claxon]

No, killing is not always evil.

However, killing the guards in this particular instance does sound like a chaotic and possibly evil act.

It is silly for a DM to expect your average barbarian to attempt to negotiate.

[Anzyr]

If the guards were going to arrest and kill them then no, its purely a neutral act. Even just arrest should get you off on a neutral act provided they were willing to fight you to arrest you. Nothing wrong with defending yourself.

[VRMH]

bob_the_monster wrote:

TBH I want to call this guy out as a rotten DM.

Please don't do that. If you don't like his game, then just don't play. But there's no need to become offensive or abusive.

[bob_the_monster]

He's all like "You didn't even ask what they were charged with".

And I am like "Korgoth doesn't care" They pointed swords at him and tried to arrest him by association and threatened him. Barbarians follow the law of nature. On a battlefield if you point a sword at someone that's a death threat.

I think what he's really mad about is that my little level 4 Barbarian has Power Attack, Cleave and was able to kill both the Paladin captain's mount and him in a single round. Honestly I am sick of mediocre or bad DMs trying to shove "the local law" down on PCs. A group of Paladins hunting a party over a stolen magical sword is just silly.

Yeah OK I'm min-maxed and deal 2d6 + 22 damage on a hit and have a bite attack. So what? Sure I can critically hit for 4d6 + 44 damage while raging. That's what Barbarians do.

He made me justify my build, which is strictly APG and Core. Masterwork greatsword, 20 base strength. Potions of Bull's strength for emergencies, or cleric buffs. Rage for 4 more strength. 3 levels in Fighter get me extra feats for cleave, power attack and extra rage. Also Two-hand fighter variant gives me. 2*STR damage on the first attack.

Honestly this guy's just mad that I critically hit his Paladin for 61 damage and buried him. Isn't that the epitome of bad DMing?

[Zhayne]

Killing is not always evil, no.

In this case, though, yeah, it definitely was.

[Cardinal Chunder]

Killing is always evil...that's why my Asmodeus following Wizard gets others to do it for him.
:)

Seriously...no it isn't. Your barbarian shouldn't feel any guilt in what he done. Besides they knew the risks...

EDIT: I wonder if the GM would have forced an alignment change if a chaotic barbarian followed the lawful laws of the where-ever...

[Anzyr]

Ya, its pretty bad GMing. Rule #1 is the npcs you expect to last one session will stick around forever and npcs you expect to stick around are going to go down like a sack of bricks. Rule #2 is that both scenarios are fine.

[Pan]

0/10

[taldanrebel2187]

I am seriously wondering how some of these people got to be PFS sanctioned DMs. I mean hey it might break the module, but I didn't write it boys.

[Claxon]

More importantly, what does it matter if what the barbarian did is evil?

There's a lot of he said she said type stuff going on already in this thread and I feel like we're not getting the full story. In any event, it is reasonable that the town guard (and paladins associated with them) would try to arrest or track down your group if they've been stealing from other nearby cities. Now, if the value wasn't incredibly high they might not try for very long, though low level magical items represent several years worth of work for commoners and the majority of people.

[Ellis Mirari]

Not always evil, but never good. The temperament of a barbarian is a non-issue, and should hold no more weight in decided whether or not it's okay to kill someone than whether or not someone in real life has anger issues and a history of violence" killing is killing. The only time it might be considered neutral, in my mind, is if it was self defense, or if you truly had no other option.

In this case... why EXACTLY were they pursuing you? You mentioned a stolen sword, so it sounds like they were just doing their jobs to me.

[Anzyr]

Ellis Mirari wrote:

Not always evil, but never good. The temperament of a barbarian is a non-issue, and should hold no more weight in decided whether or not it's okay to kill someone than whether or not someone in real life has anger issues and a history of violence" killing is killing. The only time it might be considered neutral, in my mind, is if it was self defense, or if you truly had no other option.

In this case... why EXACTLY were they pursuing you? You mentioned a stolen sword, so it sounds like they were just doing their jobs to me.

Just doing their jobs, doesn't make killing them anymore evil, considering they were willing to resort to force. Also, killing can totally be a good act. Killing a dude who is going to kill someone else is a good act hands down.

[Zhayne]

Claxon wrote:

More importantly, what does it matter if what the barbarian did is evil?

In this case, it doesn't. Obviously, since the group is an evil party, there's no 'no evil PCs' rule in place.

Sounds like the GM was trying to railroad the PCs with an 'overwhelming' enemy force and came up short.

I'm more troubled by the stereotyping of the barbarian class in this thread, myself, but I'm like that.

[Deadmanwalking]

Did you try an Intimidate check first? Expecting a stereotypical* Barbarian to negotiate is maybe a little excessive, expecting him to say "Leave my friends alone or I'll kill you." is reasonable.

If you did, calling the act Evil is likely excessive (you warned them and gave them a chance to explain why they were after your friends, after all), if you didn't, it seems reasonable to call the act Evil...but still almost certainly not enough to cause an alignment shift in isolation. If it's part of a pattern of behavior, on the other hand...

And if the GM is really just being petty about you killing an NPC, yes, that's mildly bad GMing...but your attitude seems a little wrong as well.

Let me guess: The Paladin was making a little speech about what he was doing and why and you said "I charge him and attack!" and then killed him outright. That's...not necessarily bad roleplaying, but it's bad manners OOC. Letting adversaries who aren't making overt aggressive moves finish speaking is usually part of the assumed social contract in most games most of the time. After all, without such conversations,the PCs might well have no idea what's going on with large sections of the plot, something many GMs spend quite a while working on.

*My Barbarians usually take a Trait to make Diplomacy a class skill and use it regularly...but 'Korgoth' here doesn't seem to be that sort of Barbarian.

[taldanrebel2187]

Paladin said since I was traveling with them I would need to drop my sword and be arrested. I told the GM "I charge him and begin my attack on his mount. I cleave. The horse is killed. The second attack in the cleave critically threats and confirms. Paladin is decapitated along with his horse. The next round I pick up his head and make an intimidate with it. His officers flee. Ranger shoots and kills one of the fleeing from the horse. We lo6ot the Paladins body then burn it.

A town sending a Paladin expedition after petty thieves of a magical sword? Come on. Beisdes guard authorities should have no legal authority outside their own. They laid down a threat and got their asses handed to them.

DM is mad that I made a martial character that can stand up to his railroading of the party and plot death march (read TERRIBLE GMing). We were able to steel his documents and figure out he worked for a church that had been hired to track us down for some reason.

My American attitude on this? Self-defense has been established, and that's one dead Johnnie.

[Zhayne]

So, why did you ask the question if you obviously didn't care about the answer and had already made up your mind?

(BTW, even a +1 sword is worth a fortune. It is far from 'petty theft'.)

[Fizzygoo]

Well, stealing the sword in the first place is a (minor) evil act and solidly chaotic (assuming just a standard theft and not something more ethically complex like someone hired the party to get it back for them and the party was led to believe it was stolen from their employer, etc.).

Then there's the killing of the guards and we enter into a seven layer dip of complexity (due in part because of the lack of full context in the OP).

The short answer, killing guards that are justified in arresting you; yeah, evil. Replace "Barbarian" in the last statement of the op with "bank robber":

Quote:

Why would a bank robber care what these people wanted. The cops point their guns at me = They are dead.

Yup. Evil. Not murdering children at the playground and wearing their innards to freak out the parents kind of evil. But more evil than stealing (or; it's the worst theft of all...someone's life).

But then there's just the inherent nature of the game itself where some GM's just accept that when an NPC/monster is reduced to 0 hp, it's dead, instead of applying when hp drops to negative Con or greater as for the PCs and checking if the NPC stabilizes.

And far worse is when GM's don't give an indication of the running status of enemies' health levels when in combat...and don't play NPCs realistically. When those NPCs drop to less than half their hp and don't start running, giving up, surrendering, etc., especially if it's becoming clear they are on the loosing side, then the player is not being given the appropriate level of information to make informed choices for their characters (especially where it concerns playing one's character's alignment).

If there's one guy who beats the crap out of the first 6 guys...the other 4 are going to start questioning their current plan of attack. Well, in general, anyway.

But then there's the massive question of what is the overall theme of the campaign itself and the alignment-nature of the two settlements (the one the sword was stolen from and the one where the guards + paladin attacked). If the barbarian had nothing to do with the original theft of the sword then what is the common "legal" outcome for individuals that associate with thieves? If it's known that in most cases anyone traveling with a thief will be executed then this quickly starts to move into the self-defense area (even if it's self-defense against the state).

On the other hand, if the authorities of the two settlements are know for being just and fair then killing guards who are doing their jobs moves firmly back into the evil category.

But then there's the question of what exactly happened, what was the rest of the "evil party" doing, and what is the reputation of the party? If it went down like...

Paladin: There! They match the description, detain them!
Guards: Halt! You're wanted for questioning!
Evil Party: *Fireball*, *Spring Attack*, *Rage*

Then, yup...evil. But the only description given of the party in the OP is that it's "evil" so this fits and it would seem the CN barbarian should be having more of an issue with the party than the guards or just "barbarian-up" and go evil instead of avoiding it.

But if it went down like...

Paladin: There! They match the description, detain them!
Guards: Halt! By order of this Paladin you are to be put to death here and now! Present your necks for our blades to cleave them!
Evil Party: *Fireball*, *Spring Attack*, *Rage*

Then, meh. Definitely self-defense...but self-defense only because they stole something so it's a situation that is a result of that original evil act...expect the consequences of an evil party's actions.

Which of course just leads into the "is associating with evil itself evil" quagmire. For me it's just a matter of how long. Defending your friends isn't evil. But defending your friends against those seeking retribution for their evil acts...yeah, now it's making you evil.

Say you're friends with a guy since kindergarten; BFFs sharing decoder rings and making pillow forts together every weekend. Then in 8th grade your friend starts bullying people at school. You don't, but you still hang out with him. Then one day he steals some lunch money off a 6th grader and that kid gets a bunch of his friends together the next day, surrounding your friend and demanding his money back. If you jump in and start wailing on 6th graders then you've become an evil schmuck...because you're defending the original evil act of your BFF.

So yeah, looking at it, all around I'd say the barbarian engaged in some level of evil action. But it's an evil party so...cool.

Based on the poster's second post...it's just as possible that the GM was upset because he had planned some kind of adventure that would occur after the party was taken into custody (and hence all that work gone down the tubes) as being upset from seeing an planned NPC go down like a gelatinous cube diving into a black hole (off-topic thought...dragons soak gelatinous cubes in alcohol for g-shots). Just as the sword may have some history/background to it that makes it important (whether it is or is not magical).

It's generally bad form to assume, and out right make statements declaring that assumption, of the reasons for other people's emotions. Unless the GM explicity said "I'm upset because you took down the paladin so fast," then it could be anything. And the fact he did state that he expected a negotiation leads me to think that it was that that is more at the root of his frustration.

But it's the same on the other side...when the GM starts expecting the PCs to act one way or another well, it rarely works out that way. Best for the GM just to plan for how the NPCs will react to a wide variety of PC actions and reactions.

As for why the barbarian would care about what they wanted...well that's up to the player. But low Int certainly justifies playing poor reasoning and logic (which the barbarian definitely showed by rushing in like that). But average or better Wis would certainly let the barbarian know that killing guards and a paladin, doing their jobs, would be unwise if the barbarian didn't want even more trouble from the two settlements because now not only has the barbarian aided thieves but he has become a murderer of town guards...and a paladin (and those people tend to have this whole church/order/organization thing backing them that tend to be well organized, thorough, martially skilled, and brimming with smite evils that they just love to let flow from their righteous bodies). The barbarian might not connect all those dots with a low Int, but an average or better Wis would certainly let him understand that he's digging himself a deeper pit in killing town guards.

Ah! Hehe, based on poster's 3rd post here...yeah...that's evil. Low Int or no. If a paladin says "lay down your sword, you're under arrest" and you just hall out and kill him...yup, evil. If instead you say "no" and let the paladin instigate the attack (ready an action if he charges you) then you're in more neutral ground. But again...playing in an evil party...the longer a non-evil character keeps hanging around them the sooner your characters going to become evil (or show them the "errors" of their ways, hehe).

And as for a town sending guards out after a magical sword...well it's explicitly stated in PF that commoners earn 2 gp per month. So a magical +1 longsword represents the total wealth gained from a commoner working for 96.46 years! So just based on that, such an item would be the equivalent of being worth $1,108,306.

[Zhayne]

I'm imagining a criminal in court trying that.

"Well, yes, I stole that family's belongings ... but the cop pointed his gun at me and said freeze! I only shot him in self defense!"

[Dustyboy]

The way I see it is, the theft was evil but the killing was war.

Those men who wanted to kill you were dong their duty, but it turned the who affair into a sort of business.

whilst it is a higher crime now that you've killed the guards... the kills aren't evil

[Cap. Darling]

Zhayne wrote:

I'm imagining a criminal in court trying that.

"Well, yes, I stole that family's belongings ... but the cop pointed his gun at me and said freeze! I only shot him in self defense!"

Not even in America, i think:)

[MaxAstro]

Whenever you have a question like this, always remember this simple rule: Killing equals honor!

[Zhayne]

Cap. Darling wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

I'm imagining a criminal in court trying that.

"Well, yes, I stole that family's belongings ... but the cop pointed his gun at me and said freeze! I only shot him in self defense!"

Not even in America, i think:)

Well, maybe Florida.

And Texas. Definitely in Texas.

[taldanrebel2187]

I, a nitwit level 4 Barbarian had no idea what they were carrying, whether any crime had been committed or even if these men were legitimate law authorities. Pointing a sword at someone outside = law of nature.

Killing LG Paladin douchebags isn't evil. He should have a written warrant for arrest, and not associate all criminals in one place as criminal elements.

Same thing in Texas. If Johnny Law comes to your door with his gun draw,no warrant and no ID and tries to arrest you as a "wanted suspect" 90% of the time Johnny's leaving in a bodybag.

That's called castle doctrine, and personal liberty. My Barbarian does not respect the Paladins as legitimate authorities, and acted on his own accord to protect himself and his friends.

That is not evil. And it is absolutely bad DMing, and I hope you're reading this Joshua.

[Chemlak]

Hang on, you said "10 town guards". I presume, therefore that this is actually in a town, and that they were wearing the livery of the town guards. In which case, you have no grounds to assume they're not the legitimate authorities.

Which makes your action very Chaotic.

Of course, I could be wrong, in which case I'd like to know how you knew they were "town guards" at all.

I'm still undecided regarding the good/evil nature of your actions. CE says "I can take what I can keep, because I am strongest!" CN says "I may kill when I need to, when it's convenient for me. I'd rather not, but... sometimes it's the best choice."

I'm leaning towards evil, actually, since your stance is "the ultimate authority is based on what can defeat me", which is part of the core of CE behaviour.

[Claxon]

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

I, a nitwit level 4 Barbarian had no idea what they were carrying, whether any crime had been committed or even if these men were legitimate law authorities. Pointing a sword at someone outside = law of nature.

Killing LG Paladin douchebags isn't evil. He should have a written warrant for arrest, and not associate all criminals in one place as criminal elements.

Same thing in Texas. If Johnny Law comes to your door with his gun draw,no warrant and no ID and tries to arrest you as a "wanted suspect" 90% of the time Johnny's leaving in a bodybag.

That's called castle doctrine, and personal liberty. My Barbarian does not respect the Paladins as legitimate authorities, and acted on his own accord to protect himself and his friends.

That is not evil. And it is absolutely bad DMing, and I hope you're reading this Joshua.

There's so much misinformation here I'm not sure where to even begin.

In a normal lawful society if a cop asks you to stop because you're associating with suspected criminals it is within his power to tell you to do so even if you haven't committed a crime to his knowledge, because you may be associated with the crime or other crimes. A lawful citizen should stop and answer the officers questions. If you haven't committed any crimes then your statements should be enough to allow you to walk free, though you may be expected to testify later and you would certainly remain a person of interest in relation to the crime. Person of interest meaning they may ask you more questions later or you could become a suspect based on evidence, really just that you're somehow attached to the incident.

If someone appears to be a legitimate authority, and I assume the paladins and guards announced themselves as such, then it doesn't matter whether your character thinks they are legitimate only that they're given power by the government. That's what makes them legitimate. Pointing a sword at someone doesn't mean shit, except that if you resist arrest we (the guards) are willing to use force to take you in to custody. It doesn't mean this has turned into a free for all brawl that justifies you killing everyone. That may be how your character reacts and feels about it, and it's not a invalid feeling or personalty for such a character but that doesn't mean it is "correct".

Also, castle doctrine is no such thing as you've described. If a police officer comes to your house knocks on your door and you shoot him you're going to jail. Castle doctrine relates to defending yourself and not being forced to flee your house, rather that you are allowed to defend yourself in/on your personal property. Just because cops don't have a warrant doesn't mean they aren't allowed to come to your house and arrest you. Usually warrants aren't issued for arrests, unless the individual can't be apprehended quickly. Usually warrants are issued for search of property, but arresting someone is not searching property.

[Fomsie]

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

I, a nitwit level 4 Barbarian had no idea what they were carrying, whether any crime had been committed or even if these men were legitimate law authorities. Pointing a sword at someone outside = law of nature.

Killing LG Paladin douchebags isn't evil. He should have a written warrant for arrest, and not associate all criminals in one place as criminal elements.

Same thing in Texas. If Johnny Law comes to your door with his gun draw,no warrant and no ID and tries to arrest you as a "wanted suspect" 90% of the time Johnny's leaving in a bodybag.

That's called castle doctrine, and personal liberty. My Barbarian does not respect the Paladins as legitimate authorities, and acted on his own accord to protect himself and his friends.

That is not evil. And it is absolutely bad DMing, and I hope you're reading this Joshua.

I'm sorry, between this ridiculous nonsense and your previous posts all griping about how your DM is terribad and "railroading" you, I have to wonder you two bother to play together since you clearly are on different symphonies, let alone sheets of music.

As for the justification you attempt here I must wonder if you get your interpretation of the law from playing GTA and the like because it certainly isn't from reality.

[Sehnder]

Based on the OP's attitude, this just seems like childish venting and not asking a legitimate question. "Killing LG paladin doucebags isn't evil! Screw you Joshua!" Ok then buddy.

To address the point for those actually interested in the discussion, a paradigm I use for looking at alignment issues.

SACRIFICE:
Good: Makes sacrifices for others.
Neutral: Does not make sacrifices for others, does not sacrifice others.
Evil: Sacrifices others for themselves.

NEIGHBOR:
Good: You would want to have them as a neighbor, or at least not be worried by them being your neighbor.
Neutral: You wouldn't care if they were your neighbor.
Evil: You would not want them as a neighbor.

THE NEWS:
Good: If I saw this person on the news I would sympathize with their actions.
Neutral: If I saw this person on the news, I wouldn't agree with their actions but I would understand them.
Evil: if I saw this person on the news, I would think they are a monster.

It isn't a perfect system, but it puts a good deal of "realism" behind what someone is doing. In this case.

SACRIFICE: Evil. Sacrificed others rather than deal with the situation in some other manner

NEIGHBOR: Evil. I would not want that barbarian as a neighbor.

NEWS: Evil. If I saw that barbarian on the evening news, I would want him punished to the full extent of the law.

People seem to think that only good characters don't use murder as a first resort, but I maintain that most neutrals don't either. My paradigm is that actively hurting others for convenience or profit is the essence of evil. Neutral just wants to do its own thing, while evil is willing to do its own thing- even if it hurts others.

[Fizzygoo]

Claxon wrote:

...

And to add to that:

It's a pretty smart barbarian that knows the details of the town's legal system.

It's an exceptional governmental system (for a standard medieval fantasy setting) that makes use of written warrants.

It's highly enlightened society (for a standard medieval fantasty setting) that gives any rights to anyone in the population other than the nobles, clergy, and the royalty.

[MrRetsej]

When it comes to barbarians, just follow the rule of Conan. If Conan did it, it isn't evil. And there is at least one story in which a hungover Conan splits the skull of a judge and the town guards while they have him on trial for disorderly conduct, simply because the Cimmerean found their talking annoying.

[Plasmabunny]

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

I, a nitwit level 4 Barbarian had no idea what they were carrying, whether any crime had been committed...

Why didn't your character know what your group was carrying, or whether a law was committed? I thought these guys were you character's friends?

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Even if these men were legitimate law authorities. Pointing a sword at someone outside = law of nature.

Even barbarians live in societies. Often honor based, where one would be justified in killing another leader's servants and soldiers, but the leader would be captured to be ransomed back, or set free, in order to preserve your honor, and gain profits, but also avoid a blood feud that could damage both tribes. The truth is, your character doesn't give a damn about lawful authorities, he only cares about honor, and personal gain. That being said, sometimes people die in battle, and I can't entirely fault you for it.

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Killing LG Paladin douchebags isn't evil. He should have a written warrant for arrest, and not associate all criminals in one place as criminal elements.

We've already established that your character doesn't give a damn about the law of another land, so we can ignore your mention of a written warrant, since your character is most likely to just use said document to wipe with. But your character would also HAVE concerns about your allies being accused of being criminals, because it reflects poorly on YOUR honor. Your character would be angry that your allies didn't own up to their claim over that stolen property. Stealing is fine, as long as no one can accuse you of doing so in a cowardly way.

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Same thing in Texas. If Johnny Law comes to your door with his gun draw,no warrant and no ID and tries to arrest you as a "wanted suspect" 90% of the time Johnny's leaving in a bodybag.

Not the same thing at all, in texas there are laws governing the way a police officer can behave, when an arrest is lawful or not, etc. Most of the time a police officer comes to arrest you with backup, and they WILL present ID. However in older societies, simply wearing the appropriate uniform was considered ID. But again, this does not matter since your character DOESN'T CARE about law, he cares about HONOR.

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

That's called castle doctrine, and personal liberty. My Barbarian does not respect the Paladins as legitimate authorities, and acted on his own accord to protect himself and his friends.

Castle doctine is a legal framework relating to a place your character owns, such as being in a vehicle, workplace, or home. It would not apply while walking the streets of a town you are visiting. Furthermore, it is a legal doctrine, thus it constrains the punishment of someone using force, not the arrest, and it does not even touch on the detention of someone. Furthermore, in almost all pre-modern socities, personal liberty didn't really exist. The state did what it had to do to further the interests of it's main stakeholders, and to maintain order among it's lesser stakeholders.

In the end, your characters behavior might not be evil. But I don't think it was bad dming either. It was miscommunication.

Furthermore, perhaps you are being an unreasonable player? After listening to you here, I have no desire to game with you. and I'm reasonably sure that no one else here would willingly sit with you at a gaming table after the tantrum you have thrown here.

Unless you want all of your gaming options to dry up, I suggest you start acting more reasonably, and accepting that games like this are about playing with PEOPLE, not WINNING.

[Jacob Saltband]

MrRetsej wrote:

When it comes to barbarians, just follow the rule of Conan. If Conan did it, it isn't evil. And there is at least one story in which a hungover Conan splits the skull of a judge and the town guards while they have him on trial for disorderly conduct, simply because the Cimmerean found their talking annoying.

Which Robert E. Howard novel was this?

Edit: Or L. Sprague de Camp? it has been years since I've read a Conan book, was wondering which book this scenario was in.

[Deadmanwalking]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

MrRetsej wrote:

When it comes to barbarians, just follow the rule of Conan. If Conan did it, it isn't evil. And there is at least one story in which a hungover Conan splits the skull of a judge and the town guards while they have him on trial for disorderly conduct, simply because the Cimmerean found their talking annoying.

Which Robert E. Howard novel was this?

Yeah...I'm not remembering that one either. And I've read most of Conan...though I admit that was a while ago.

[taldanrebel2187]

C.N. characters follow their whims. In the wilderness, the next town over's Paladins have no law other than their might. We'd made it into another country, in game terms. Bad DMing, was, frankly, bad.

[Paulicus]

This is an example of players using CN to justify whatever actions they want, and it's why the CN alignment gets such a bad reputation.

Maybe the GM isn't experienced but he's trying? This is a cooperative game, players need to make characters that can actually interact with the world and a party to some degree, or why would the GM even bother trying?

[taldanrebel2187]

Again, Chaotic Neutral per SRD:

"Aavoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions.

Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal."

I noticed the Paladin approaching, he threatened my PC with a crime I didn't commit. Then pointed a sword at me and demanded to arrest me. I kill him because as a CN Barbarian, I resent moral authority and I am free from do-gooder's zeal.

Where's the issue? Again, bad DM is bad. Why would a 7 INT Barbarian care to hear some Paladin's crushing lectures about thieving being wrong and then tolerate being actively threatened?

Answer: He wouldn't. He'd chop the guy and is horse in half, then intimidate the survivors.

[Zhayne]

He certainly could. Quit hiding behind class stereotypes.

Bad GM is bad, yes, but bad player is bad too. You CHOSE to play a sociopathic lunatic; it's NOT inherent in the class.

[taldanrebel2187]

It's called RPing. I had no in-character reason to not react with hostility to someone that threatened my character's life over a crime I had no knowledge of nor committed. Pointing a longsword at someone and threatening them is an act of war.

CN respects no legal authority. Certainly not outside their country where they threaten people on the Paladin notion of "guilt by association". Again, bad DMing is bad.

[Wyntr]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

MrRetsej wrote:

When it comes to barbarians, just follow the rule of Conan. If Conan did it, it isn't evil. And there is at least one story in which a hungover Conan splits the skull of a judge and the town guards while they have him on trial for disorderly conduct, simply because the Cimmerean found their talking annoying.

Which Robert E. Howard novel was this?

Yeah...I'm not remembering that one either. And I've read most of Conan...though I admit that was a while ago.

It might be from Queen of the Black Coast. Conan had forced his way onto a ship leaving for foreign lands by threatening to kill the crew; he was then explaining why he was fleeing the city to Tito, the ship master:

Queen of the Black Coast wrote:

'Why do the guards pursue you?' asked Tito. 'Not that it's any of my business, but I thought perhaps-'

'I've nothing to conceal,' replied the Cimmerian. 'By Crom, though I've spent considerable time among you civilized peoples, your ways are still beyond my comprehension.

'Well, last night in a tavern, a captain in the king's guard offered violence to the sweetheart of a young soldier, who naturally ran him through. But it seems there is some cursed law against killing guardsmen, and the boy and his girl fled away. It was bruited about that I was seen with them, and so today I was haled into court, and a judge asked me where the lad had gone. I replied that since he was a friend of mine, I could not betray him. Then the court waxed wrath, and the judge talked a great deal about my duty to the state, and society, and other things I did not understand, and bade me tell where my friend had flown. By this time I was becoming wrathful myself, for I had explained my position.

'But I choked my ire and held my peace, and the judge squalled that I had shown contempt for the court, and that I should be hurled into a dungeon to rot until I betrayed my friend. So then, seeing they were all mad, I drew my sword and cleft the judge's skull; then I cut my way out of the court, and seeing the high constable's stallion tied near by, I rode for the wharfs, where I thought to find a ship bound for foreign parts.'

'Well,' said Tito hardily, 'the courts have fleeced me too often in suits with rich merchants for me to owe them any love. I'll have questions to answer if I ever anchor in that port again, but I can prove I acted under compulsion. You may as well put up your sword. We're peaceable sailors, and have nothing against you. Besides, it's as well to have a fighting-man like yourself on board. Come up to the poop-deck and we'll have a tankard of ale.'

[taldanrebel2187]

Furthermore, how is my Barbarian to know that the Paladin is whom he says he is? All I know is this guy just threatened me and my friends, demanded I drop my weapon with NO EVIDENCE and then threatened me a second time and drawed a weapon.

Self-defense is self-defense. Chaotic neutral is chaotic neutral, 7 INT is 7 INT. And BAD DMing is what?

Bad DMing. I'll say this, was the guy's first time DMing with veteran players. Probably he's used to the party taking every NPC very seriously. But hey, that's what Barbarians are for right?

[Fizzygoo]

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Answer: He wouldn't. He'd chop the guy and is horse in half, then intimidate the survivors.

Which is evil.

Whether you're playing the dumb barbarian or evil mastermind, if the character's initial desired response to a situation is to take life, to kill...to murder...that' evil.

"Dumb barbarian" doesn't get anyone off the hook of being evil for killing people.

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Pointing a longsword at someone and threatening them is an act of war.

That is a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of what "war" is.

[taldanrebel2187]

Killing a LG character that is acting stupidly isn't evil. Killing in self-defense is not evil, nor is protecting your friends. The Paladin had no proof of his allegations and charged me with a crime my PC did not commit and had zero in-character knowledge of.

To a Barbarian, being threatened with a weapon is an act of war. Bad DMing is again what? Bad DMing. NO Barbarian will drop their weapon just because some guy in polished armour and frilly white stalkings tell him to LOL

We have to keep in mind that modern morality doesn't enter into the equation. This is a medieval game world. The Paladin was well outside his church and nation's border. Even in the nicest of terms, the Paladin had zero authority to arrest someone that was unrelated with the crime, lacking evidence and then threaten the guys life for refusing to drop his weapon.

I consider that I RP'd this situation very well. The problem is only my character was on watch when Captain Douchebag and his Paladin squad came up. The DM is steaming because I didn't react the way he wanted us to react (i.e. railroad plot and RP death march).

That is the heart of bad DMing (railroading the PCs into one course of action)

Per Paladin CoC:

"help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents"

Where does the Paladin have the right to threaten the life of an innocent person he just met? Because he's with "suspicious people". Sorry that's the sort of bad police logic that says it's ok to shoot someone that lives near a drug dealer, because they were "uh hurr, guilty by association".

EDIT #2:

I think some forum members need to look-up what constitutes evil. Per the PRD, it's not evil to kill someone that threatens your life. Especially if you're in a foaming mad rage when you do it.

[Hebitsuikaza]

This is blatantly evil. It isn't even a question. It is flat-out blatant and overt evil.

Seriously-- if Ogres are evil, if Trolls are evil, if Orcs are evil... then this is evil. You straight-out mimicked the behavior of those monsters through and through.

So if those monsters are ever considered to be evil, then this character is also entirely evil. Because he is acting like a Ogre. Hell, I think most Orcs would have behaved better under the circumstances.

[TheNine]

I was unaware that arresting you for theft was the same thing as threatening your life? I think even for the most might makes right chaotic of barbarians you are twisting things into your viewing. You dont like the dming.. you do it then.

[Haelcione]

if the character honestly believes his party, then not evil just misguided. however a seven int is not dumb as a post, you would have to be down in the 3-5 range for that reasoning to work

[Deadmanwalking]

Wyntr wrote:

It might be from Queen of the Black Coast. Conan had forced his way onto a ship leaving for foreign lands by threatening to kill the crew; he was then explaining why he was fleeing the city to Tito, the ship master:

Oh yeah! That's probably it. That's a long way from killing people for talking too much. Though it is killing them for trying to arrest you for showing loyalty to a friend who committed a crime, and thus relevant.

Still, as per my original post, he explained his position to them first before resorting to violence. Makes it solidly CN in my book.

The OP does not appear to have said anything equivalent. Which makes the action problematic, IMO. Though likely not enough to send him full-on Evil.

[Anzyr]

TheNine wrote:

I was unaware that arresting you for theft was the same thing as threatening your life? I think even for the most might makes right chaotic of barbarians you are twisting things into your viewing. You dont like the dming.. you do it then.

It most certainly threatens his life. He will either be imprisoned or killed. He obviously does not desire either of those outcomes and thus responds to force with force. That's extremely neutral.

When the players show up to arrest/kill the BBEG it's not evil for the BBEG to fight them. It's neutral. In fact the BBEG can fight pretty much anyone who comes at him with force without it being an evil act (by itself). Evil acts may have gotten him to BBEG status, but that doesn't mean all his acts are suddenly evil because the people opposing him happen to be good.

[Otm-Shank]

I was going to weigh in on this thread but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe that the OP isn't attempting to troll us.

As such, it's just not worth my time.

[Pan]

Otm-Shank wrote:

I was going to weigh in on this thread but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe that the OP isn't attempting to troll us.

As such, it's just not worth my time.

I agree. I gave a 0/10 but hes got quite a few fish on the hook here might have to up it to 1/10.

[Zhayne]

Otm-Shank wrote:

I was going to weigh in on this thread but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe that the OP isn't attempting to troll us.

As such, it's just not worth my time.

Agreed. This degree of ignorance can only be willful.