| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have come to the same conclusion. Only deliberate trolling could be this obtuse.
We kill trolls with fire correct?
And acid. Don't forget the acid!
We kill trolls with fire correct?And acid. Don't forget the acid!
I think the OP already dropped the acid.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
AM NOT "AM BARBARIAN," BUT AM OTHER BARBARIAN, AND AM SAY BARBARIAN DO WHAT BARBARIAN PLEASE.
AM NOT CARE ABOUT WHAT TALKY-MEN WANT. AM NOT SMART ABOUT TALK WITH TALKY-MEN, BUT AM NOT CARE. AM JUST WANT BIG WEAPON, AND SMASH WITH BIG WEAPON. AM ALSO WANT SMASH CASTIES, NOT TALKY-MEN.
BUT IF TALKY-MEN WANT SMASH, AM SMASH TALKY-MEN AS TALKY-MEN WANT. AM LAUGH AT TALKY-MEN WHEN TRY SMASH BARBARIAN, AS TALKY-MEN AM NOT-BARBARIAN, AND WHEN AM NOT-BARBARIAN, AM MORE BAD THAN BARBARIAN.
BARBARIAN ALSO AM NOT SMART, AM NOT KNOW BETTER THAN SMASH. BARBARIAN AM LEAVE TALK AND SMART THINGIES FOR NOT-BARBARIANS, AS NOT-BARBARIANS AM NOT GOOD AT SMASH-TIME. BARBARIAN AM GOOD AT SMASH-TIME, AND AM ALL BARBARIAN DO.
AM THINK OTHER NOT-SMART AM BADDY, IF AM BARBARIAN AM BADDY FOR SMASH, OTHER NOT-SMART AM BADDY TOO. AM NOT GOOD FOR SMASH TALKY-MEN, BUT AM NOT BAD, AS AM NOT KNOW MORE THAN SMASH.
AM HOPE BARBARIAN AM HELP TALKY-MEN IN PLACE "UHN-DUR-STAND" WHAT BARBARIAN AM ABOUT. BARBARIAN AM NOT "GOODY TWO-SHOES". BARBARIAN AM NOT "BADDY". BARBARIAN AM SMASH. SMASH AM NOT BAD. AM GOOD FOR BARBARIAN, BUT AM NOT KNOW ABOUT NOT-BARBARIANS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Written warrant? I assume you'd also expect to read him him Miranda rights as well? Those are rather modern concepts which did not exist for more than a century in the U.S. and you're expecting this in a society which models the 12th century? Back in the day the only "warrant" needed was someone declaring himself the law of the land.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.
Lets get one thing straight here: Resisting Arrest is not Evil. It's not Good either. It could be Chaotic or Lawful depending on the scenario (Though more likely Chaotic). But for the most part its pretty Neutral.
Now if its Neutral why is doing it such a problem in today's society? Because a Lawful Society doesn't like when you break it's laws and will punish for that.
Everyone following?
Not if they show up armed and willing to use violence to take you in. Responding to injury to your person and freedom is neutral and you don't need to wait to get hit to make it so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets get one thing straight here: Resisting Arrest is not Evil. It's not Good either. It could be Chaotic or Lawful depending on the scenario (Though more likely Chaotic). But for the most part its pretty Neutral.
Now if its Neutral why is doing it such a problem in today's society? Because a Lawful Society doesn't like when you break it's laws and will punish for that.
Everyone following?
Despite this thread being full of trolling, I still enjoy discussion and would like to respond here.
I agree resisting arrest is in general neither good nor evil, it is very self serving and neutral. But, resisting arrest and in the process killing people who were lawfully arresting you, seems pretty evil. I mean, it's pretty much murder right?
Guards telling you they're there to arrest you and will use force if you resist is pretty standard. It's there way of saying they mean business. Now, I wouldn't expect a barbarian to care but it doesn't make it less evil to kill them all to save his own skin. He could have run away instead of using violence.
"Murder" is a legal thing. So yes it is murder. But murder isn't inherently evil (though it almost always going to be "unlawful").
Guards are not innocents or bystanders. They are active agents that are opposed to you. Now if the Barbarian murdered when they weren't trying to imprison him just because at some future point they might, ya that'd be Evil. Or if he held a civilian hostage, once again evil. But when the guards are an active threat to the barbarians life/freedom, its not evil to return their violence with violence. It would have been "better" to run away, though probably not enough to make it "good", though a "Good" person clashing with guards would take care not kill them, it is not evil to so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do not have to wait for your enemy to have you in cuffs or a sword at your throat to attack them. And yes they were threatening injury with force.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Murder isn't inherently evil? Are you high?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I'm just able to discern between legal terminology and what is good/evil. If a citizen of a country were attacked by it's soldiers and the citizen succeeded in killing the soldiers, it would be murder, regardless of whether then regime in charge was noble or corrupt. Or do you believe it is evil to kill soldiers of an evil regime who are attacking citizens?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Murder isn't inherently evil? Are you high?Anzyr was speaking about murder as a legal thing---that is, murder is unlawful killing. If you replace "murder" with "unlawful killing" you get
Butmurderunlawful killing isn't inherently evil (though it almost always going to be "unlawful").
That seems pretty obviously true to me.
On the point of whether the barbarian should've run away instead of fighting back, I would mention that the Paladin was mounted. It's rather hard to run away when whoever you're trying to get away from has a faster move speed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"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.
I'm surprised that no one has noted that regardless of weather or not this was evil it was most certainly not the way the rules work. Cleave is a standard action and cannot be done on a charge.
Now back to the evil part. I don't think I would nessecarily consider fighting back against arrest to be evil in and of itself. We have only one side of the story here, and even that one sided take on the situation has a good number of people leaning towards calling it an evil act. I can only imagine what we would learn from hearing the GMs account of things. The GM is the one who gets to make the call on if this was evil or not, he's the only person who is qualified (or hopefully he is qualified) to make that call in regards to his game world. If the OP doesn't like how it was ruled he should talk to the GM rather than come on the message boards and whine about how his GM runs the game they are playing. It certainly isn't going to solve the problem the OP is having with the GM, but I suspect that isn't the objective here anyways.
From the PRD:
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Seems pretty clear to me that it's evil. It was convenient for him to kill the lawful guards attempting to arrest him. That they were prepared to use force to arrest him is of no consequence. Or else you're telling me it's not evil for a criminal to kill cops to avoid being arrested. I can understand why a criminal might do it, but it doesn't make it less evil.
Alignment is object, it doesn't matter what the barbarian's opinion on the situation is because good and evil are set by outside forces. Unfortunately we don't have exhaustive examples so we are forced to interpret it ourselves and leads to these discussions. To me, it seems clear the barbarians actions are evil.
Still, I don't see why it's relevant? Why does it matter that the barbarian committed an evil act? It's evil, but not enough on it's own to change his alignment. I doubt the barbarian actually purposefully killed them, rather he just attacked them in order to facilitate his escape. Now, because of his strength him killed them. But it's not as though he set out to kill them, making sure they were dead when they dropped.
The Barbarian didn't kill without qualms. He met people who were willing to kill/imprison him in combat. Had he killed them without reason sure he'd be evil, but that's not the case here.
Again, it is unlawful in society for a criminal to kill the cops to avoid being arrested. Evil though? I can't imagine so. They are simply opposing forces at that point. Otherwise every revolutionary ever would have to be evil and that just is not the case. That doesn't make it good to do so of course, mind you, just neutral.
The Barbarian didn't kill without qualms. He met people who were willing to kill/imprison him in combat. Had he killed them without reason sure he'd be evil, but that's not the case here.
Again, it is unlawful in society for a criminal to kill the cops to avoid being arrested. Evil though? I can't imagine so. They are simply opposing forces at that point. Otherwise every revolutionary ever would have to be evil and that just is not the case. That doesn't make it good to do so of course, mind you, just neutral.
Outlaws killing law enforcement and other people who are after them sounds more like a Chaotic act (defy authority) than purely evil.
Ned Kelly is a historical figure in Australia whose greatest crime amounts up to killing a couple of police officers who were in pursuit. He was a folk hero back then and he still is somewhat of a Robin Hood figure.
Lawful Vs. Chaos =/= Good vs. Evil
Nuff Said...
He had 3 options
1) Surrender and accept arrest - Lawful Good
2) Attempt to run away, including using non-lethal force to facilitate escape - Chaotic Neutral
3) Kill the guards attempting to arrest him and then leave - Chaotic Evil
People forget non-lethal is an option for some reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Running away was not effective because the Paladin had a horse. Also, there was no need to. The guards were willing to use force on him and thus should be prepared to accept that the Barbarian can use force on them. Because both sides are ok with using force on the other, the good/evil scales are balanced. This is why good people on different sides of a conflicts or war can both still be good.
Seems pretty clear to me that it's evil. It was convenient for him to kill the lawful guards attempting to arrest him. That they were prepared to use force to arrest him is of no consequence. Or else you're telling me it's not evil for a criminal to kill cops to avoid being arrested. I can understand why a criminal might do it, but it doesn't make it less evil.
Alignment is object, it doesn't matter what the barbarian's opinion on the situation is because good and evil are set by outside forces. Unfortunately we don't have exhaustive examples so we are forced to interpret it ourselves and leads to these discussions. To me, it seems clear the barbarians actions are evil.
this is why alignment is such a pain.
if you say alignment is objective then most of the actions a paladin takes on the average adventure can be considered evil.
On the other hand if alignment is subjective than that same paladin can gleefully slaughter for any reason that fits his rational and be continually blessed by their god.
In my games the GM is the sole arbiter of alignment... however a GM cannot punish a players alignment without warning, either prior to the action that the act will be considered counter to their alignment for xyz reason OR after the action that the act, if continued or repeated, will affect alignment.
|
Doesnt look like the OP is still posting.
Did the OP even try to protest that they had the wrong people? By his post, no he did not. He just attacked.
I think that most of what the problem is is that the OP has an issue with his GM.
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.
Running away was not effective because the Paladin had a horse. Also, there was no need to. The guards were willing to use force on him and thus should be prepared to accept that the Barbarian can use force on them. Because both sides are ok with using force on the other, the good/evil scales are balanced. This is why good people on different sides of a conflicts or war can both still be good.
This isn't war. Don't use that comparison, it's not valid. The barbarian could have knocked the horse and paladin unconscious rather than use lethal force. Just because it's not convenient to attempt run away doesn't mean killing is justified. Look at what the PRD says again: " kill without qualms if doing so is convenient".
The guards being willing to use legal force to arrest him doesn't mean he is justified in killing them. They use force when people will not willingly comply with the law, else the law has no means of enforcing it's policies when people refuse to comply with the law.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making the force "legal" does not change the fact that the guards are still using force. It absolutely is a conflict (obviously not a war). Two sides with different values are clashing with force. Neither side is more "good" then the other here. He didn't kill them because it was convenient, he killed them because he was in a fight with them. If simply killing someone who you are fighting is considered to be "out of convenience", than adventurers/guards/soldiers are pretty much forced to be evil.
The law can absolutely enforce it's policies, it just doesn't make resisting them evil. Again... following the law to arrest the Barbarian does not make the guards good or evil. It makes their actions lawful neutral. The Barbarian who resists this is not good or evil. He is neutral, though very likely chaotic.
I think the problem you are having Claxon is that you are equating Lawful with "Good" or perhaps "Correct", or maybe most accurately from what I can tell of your argument "Legitimate". Lawful is not any of those things.
Killing is rarely evil. We kill to eat, we kill to defend ourselves, we kill to stop someone from hurting, killing or destroying something and we kill in war ie Joan of Arc. It's only when killing is for fun, profit or malice that it becomes evil. James bond is a hero. So too Indiana Jones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't war. Don't use that comparison, it's not valid.
Of course it's valid. You can't simultaneously have this universal, objective morality and then compartmentalize the world into neat boxes where this kind of killing is good, and that kind of killing is evil.
A war isn't a special kind of fighting where you get to suspend the normal rules that imperil your soul when breaking them for this particular event.
The barbarian could have knocked the horse and paladin unconscious rather than use lethal force. Just because it's not convenient to attempt run away doesn't mean killing is justified. Look at what the PRD says again: " kill without qualms if doing so is convenient".
There is always another option and the argument you are constructing is that killing is always wrong no matter what, you just don't want to admit that this is what you are doing.
You want to let many instances of killing go, but over analyze ones that strike your emotions. There is always another option, and your own life is not more valuable than another's. There is no justification even in saving your own life, if it requires taking another's.
Generally, in real life, for those people that actually believe in universal morality, there is no special self-defense clause (especially for the people who actually know what they are talking about like theologians, rather than yokels).
These kinds of caveats you wish to go on about are a matter of social contract, which is by definition subjective.
The guards being willing to use legal force to arrest him doesn't mean he is justified in killing them. They use force when people will not willingly comply with the law
"Legal force" isn't some special category of force. You want this to be an exception to a general rule. If you have exceptions to rules you no longer have an objective definition of good and evil (at least not one that is universal, which is clearly what is written in the rules).
the law has no means of enforcing it's policies when people refuse to comply with the law.
The law (usually) has nothing to do with good and evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing isn't always evil. But murder is. The barbarian committed murder.
The difference is the moral justification for the act. Keeping yourself out of prison isn't a justifiable reason.
|
Killing is rarely evil. We kill to eat, we kill to defend ourselves, we kill to stop someone from hurting, killing or destroying something and we kill in war ie Joan of Arc. It's only when killing is for fun, profit or malice that it becomes evil. James bond is a hero. So too Indiana Jones.
One can make a very strong argument that James Bond (the one in the books, at least) is evil. He kills those he is ordered to kill, without reason except that he is following orders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing isn't always evil. But murder is. The barbarian committed murder.
The difference is the moral justification for the act. Keeping yourself out of prison isn't a justifiable reason.
Murder is unlawful, not evil. The definition of murder is pretty clear on this, unless you are using the term to mean something else, in which case it would help if you clarified it or switched to another term.
Keeping yourself out prison is not a "Good" reason for killing. But it's also not an "Evil" one. It probably not a "Lawful" one and very likely to be a "Chaotic" one. What I think you are having trouble with is that you assume the people putting people in prison are somehow "just", "good", "correct", or "moral". This is not true. Devils are big fan of prisons after all...
Killing is rarely evil. We kill to eat, we kill to defend ourselves, we kill to stop someone from hurting, killing or destroying something and we kill in war ie Joan of Arc. It's only when killing is for fun, profit or malice that it becomes evil. James bond is a hero. So too Indiana Jones.One can make a very strong argument that James Bond (the one in the books, at least) is evil. He kills those he is ordered to kill, without reason except that he is following orders.
While I'm only familiar with the movie Bond, I can definitely believe there being a strong argument for the book version of him being evil. As to the movie Bond(s), I would personally place him at true Neutral. While he does kill solely based on orders, the people he kills are never innocent bystanders (though he cares very little about collateral damage) and are in fact usually involved in some kind of very lethal plot that is against his nations interests. Mind you he doesn't exactly follow all his orders and tends to disregard them when he thinks he can get away with it/they go against his personal code so I'm hesitant to plop him in either the Lawful or Chaotic camp.
I'm basing it on the idea that murder is unlawful premeditated killing of someone. Meaning it's not justified. That makes it evil.
Killing without justification is evil.
*Side note, that is why I said this action was chaotic evil. I should also note that technically I guess it doesn't qualify for murder since it isn't premeditated. But, that's more of a modern day legal system issue.
Premeditated killings can totally be Good. SEAL Team Six's killing of Osama Bin Laden's was premeditated after all and was probably unlawful to boot. You seem to be still equating unlawful with unjustified when that is simply not the case. It is probably unlawful to rescue someone from a contract with a devil, but I can assure you that it is not only justifiable, but Good (and Chaotic).
Where a state is engaged in a war with a legitimate casus belli, a soldier from one of the combatant states may lawfully kill a soldier in the army of the opposing state so long as that soldier has not surrendered. This principle is embedded in public international law and has been respected by most states around the world. Thus, if there is no formal declaration of war or the casus belli is not legitimate, all those who engage in the fighting and kill combatants could theoretically be prosecuted. Protecting the national interest against external aggressors is considered an excuse on utilitarian grounds, i.e. the greatest public good will be derived from the defeat of the enemy.
Unlawful portion of Osama's death aside (as that's not truly important here) it is justifiable because it was in the national interest against an external aggressor (Al Qaeda) because of the public good derived from his death. That is to say, removing the leader the leader of a dangerous group reduces the danger they posed.
It would be chaoticly good to save someone from a contract with a devil, as devils being inherently evil acting against them would usually be good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok... but justifiable in the "nation's interest" isn't any more "Good" then justifiable in an "individual's interest". Though justifiable in the nation's interest is probably lawful, while justifiable in an individual's interest is only neutral (though it could be Chaotic it need not be). But neither is "Good" or "Evil".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Barbarian didn't kill without qualms. He met people who were willing to kill/imprison him in combat. Had he killed them without reason sure he'd be evil, but that's not the case here.
Again, it is unlawful in society for a criminal to kill the cops to avoid being arrested. Evil though? I can't imagine so. They are simply opposing forces at that point. Otherwise every revolutionary ever would have to be evil and that just is not the case. That doesn't make it good to do so of course, mind you, just neutral.
I found this interesting because it illustrates a point where it feels like the opposing views in this thread are talking over each other (or at least where I should clarify myself).
For my posts, I have been talking about the act of killing rather than the person doing the killing. And I'm only discussing individual alignment, not societal alignment.
And I'll clarify, my stance, that just because a character (or person in real life) does an evil act it does not necessarily mean an alignment change is in order.
For sentient creatures with morality and ethics; taking the life of another living thing is evil. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Not just murder, but killing; the taking of a life.
Any willingly-committed act that ends the life of another, where the acting individual is aware that by so acting a life may be taken, is an evil act. But it's determining how evil that is important for GMs and players when considering alignment.
Taking the life of a person who jumped out of the shadows actively stabbing at they grapple you is far, far, far, less evil than killing a paladin that is arresting you at the point of a sword which is less evil than murdering townsfolk in their sleep.
The more options that you have to allow you not to take a life makes the taking of that life more evil. The grappling attacker has left you with no (or almost no) options. The paladin encounter has far more options (just kill the horse and run, let your party speak for themselves first, take a -4 penalty to hit to deal nonlethal damage, etc.) And murdering townsfolk in their sleep; well there's nearly an infinite amount of other options to use your free time for.
The evil act must be weighed within the full context of the situation as well as against past actions in order to determine if the individual has become evil.
But by following the 'all killing is evil' guideline it prevents players from being able to use "my character has a low Int so I can get away with murder" excuse...so long as the GM doesn't abuse GM authority, of course.
In the case of the OP; The act was evil, but well within the barbarian's CN alignment by protecting/ensuring his and his friends freedoms and liberties above all else. But as the original poster continued to give information about the event it became far more clear that the real issue lies between the player and the GM.
The evil of killing a BBEGs is far outweighed by the good done in stopping said BBEGs evil acts from continuing in the world. But outside the fanatical ideology-driven BBEGs examples, when the PCs take a life they end all chance of that life redeeming themselves through good works and paying restitution to the parties they've wronged.
Killing can't be chaotic because it robs liberty and freewill from the killed. It can't be lawful because it prohibits the killed from seeking honor (or redemption) in the society. It can't be good because good is the promotion of life. And it can't be neutral because it is making a choice about another person's right to existence.
Killing is evil.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to try to toss in 2 cp (or in practice, maybe a little more) without getting dragged in any further:
- The act of destroying sentient lives can be classified as "Evil," BUT it can frequently be considered "the lesser of two Evils, and there is no Good option" (and this can be considered the norm faced by adventurers).
- Consider "Ozymandias' Dilemma" (AKA "Lenin's/Truman's/Spock's/Ammon Jerro's Dilemma"): If it is the best/only way to preserve a billion sentients, one is justified in killing a million. Consider also one of the larger flies in this perhaps-overly-arithmetical morality: What if, in spite of the very idea being horrific to many, some individuals are so qualitatively superior to others that it is better to sacrifice a certain many for the sake of a certain few? Forced to choose, for example, between the lives of every member of 10 Major League Football teams and Albert Einstein (for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that they all have about the same potential lifespan to look forward to at the time of this decision), would you kill the football players to save Einstein? I would (many people who deserve such privileged consideration, Einstein included, might protest this verdict, but they ought in such an event to consider the Adlai Stevenson mentality).
- Consider the act of eating: Every organism in Earth's animal kingdom (with the notable exception of the golden jellyfish of Palau, and even they do some of this, apparently) sustains its life at the expense of other life - some sentient, some not. In case some people react to this observation by saying something along the lines of, "what do I care? I'm HUMANNN!!! F!~$YEAH!", pan out and consider the case of the Crystalline Entity from Star Trek: The Next Generation: originally viewed as simply malevolent (it was Lore's best buddy, after all) since it had destroyed all organic life in and around the colony where Data was discovered, it finally occurs to Picard in the episode "Silicon Avatar" that its behavior may be no more "Evil" than that of a humpback whale devouring thousands of krill - and it may not even realize it's been feeding on sentient life, and could perhaps be convinced to cross certain life-forms off its menu. Under the circumstances, I'd be remiss in failing to at least mention Gojira and Cthulhu, as well. Anyways, this is why almost every non-Abrahamic religion ("The idea of an incarnation of God is absurd: why should the human race think itself so superior to bees, ants, and elephants as to be put in this unique relation to its maker? . . Christians are like a council of frogs in a marsh or a synod of worms on a dung-hill croaking and squeaking, 'for our sakes was the world created.'" - Julian The Philosopher) takes a more humble, nuanced, sadder-but-wiser approach to this issue, and why, for example, the Ju/'hoansi (AKA !Kung or "the bushmen of the Kalahari") make a ritual of apologizing to the animals they kill for meat as they die, something otherwise unfamiliar readers may still remember portrayed in The Gods Must Be Crazy or, more likely still, Avatar (I was lucky to have had some background in actual anthropology before seeing that movie; it did a lot to augment my appreciation of it). Placing this issue in a fantasy setting, consider also Might & Magic VIII, in which
- Consider the matter of euthanasia: When people's lives consist of hopeless, incorrigible misery, the best thing to do may be to "put them out of their misery." This is something else I am in favor of, having seen what a series of strokes did to my great-grandmother; for the last several years of her life, she was worse off than a baby and could barely, if at all, recognize her own daughter, and certainly not anyone else (and she held onto her marbles long enough to know me for the first handful of years of my life). Whoever she'd been was already dead, and deanimating her body would have been a formality, and any feeble shred of will and dignity that might have remained would have begged for such a thing anyways. Turning this over to fantasy gaming, you could say that many of the enemies a party faces, from mooks to archvillains, are in a similar boat: By the time you encounter them, whatever Good, intelligent, or beautiful thing they once were or could have been has already died or is beyond hope, and they could be like zombies even if they don't carry the template; if you don't stop them, they'll just continue marching on and needlessly dragging others to the similar fate. This, by the way, is why Undead are almost always Evil, and why so many Good deities are so preoccupied with killing them: Vampires and zombies (in particular) are metaphors for real-world phenomena and kinds of people, like Tolkien's Orcs and Elves, and it's continually interesting (although in some cases, frustrating and even worrisome, but in others, a secret door to awesome new paradigms) to see how taking profound ancient metaphors and literalizing them, as fantasy does, can completely change the meaning and implications. Going back to the thread's basic issue of "is killing Evil," keep in mind the violence in fantasy is partly a metaphor for overcoming obstacles, surviving the assaults that mediocre minds are known to level against great spirits, solving problems, and changing the world - read your Joseph Campbell, consider the symbolism of the kartika, and remember, those who have trouble doing so, what it means to "suspend disbelief" as well, probably, as "suspending belief" so you can recognize this kind of weirdness without losing sight of what was originally meant, and enjoy everything that merits it as it was meant to be enjoyed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Barbarian didn't kill without qualms. He met people who were willing to kill/imprison him in combat. Had he killed them without reason sure he'd be evil, but that's not the case here.
Again, it is unlawful in society for a criminal to kill the cops to avoid being arrested. Evil though? I can't imagine so. They are simply opposing forces at that point. Otherwise every revolutionary ever would have to be evil and that just is not the case. That doesn't make it good to do so of course, mind you, just neutral.
I found this interesting because it illustrates a point where it feels like the opposing views in this thread are talking over each other (or at least where I should clarify myself).
For my posts, I have been talking about the act of killing rather than the person doing the killing. And I'm only discussing individual alignment, not societal alignment.
And I'll clarify, my stance, that just because a character (or person in real life) does an evil act it does not necessarily mean an alignment change is in order.
For sentient creatures with morality and ethics; taking the life of another living thing is evil. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Not just murder, but killing; the taking of a life.
Any willingly-committed act that ends the life of another, where the acting individual is aware that by so acting a life may be taken, is an evil act. But it's determining how evil that is important for GMs and players when considering alignment.
Taking the life of a person who jumped out of the shadows actively stabbing at they grapple you is far, far, far, less evil than killing a paladin that is arresting you at the point of a sword which is less evil than murdering townsfolk in their sleep.
The more options that you have to allow you not to take a life makes the taking of that life more evil. The grappling attacker has left you with no (or...
So... Paladin's are mighty screwed in your campaigns then huh? I mean if any willful act that ends another living thing is evil, Paladin's can't even hunt for food. I'm sorry but I don't think this is case and that some takings of life are not just neutral but good.
So... Paladin's are mighty screwed in your campaigns then huh? I mean if any willful act that ends another living thing is evil, Paladin's can't even hunt for food. I'm sorry but I don't think this is case and that some takings of life are not just neutral but good.
The nuance of my post you're referring to seems to have gotten lost somewhere.
Taking a life is evil...but should be compared to why it was taken and what other options were available.
Paladin's are the life-taking arm of their deity. So long as they are working towards the greater good (and law) of their deity then the evil done by killing will be far outweighed by their good deeds. If the LG deity's tenants say that all thieves, even beggars stealing bread, should be put to death and the paladin follows that tenant then I, as a GM, wouldn't punish that paladin. I just wouldn't be GM in a campaign that had such a deity getting away with being defined as good. If I were a player in that campaign world then I would keep my grumblings about how that's not a good deity off-table and OOC.
The code of conduct for a paladin states "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Which gives the GM and player a lot of leeway to decide guidelines for how the paladin should appropriately deal out punishment which should be guided by the specific deity/order the paladin follows.
So again, by default, at the baseline; killing is evil. But the good of saving the lives of others from a murderer/assailant far outweighs the evil of killing said murderer/assailant. Such that, at least when I GM, the paladin would never be in danger of 'falling' for doing so.
