Err, if I'm remembering right, aren't these guys you killed cultists of Norgorber? If so, sparing him would be more evil than killing him.
|
For the purposes of gameplay if the GM didn't know the specific rules or couldn't reference them rapidly enough to prevent a significant delay in the game, they can just make a ruling that lasts until the end of the scenario when these things can be referenced.
As for your situation, I would recommend, as others have, showing them this discussion, providing links to the various materials on how PFS handles alignment change (see the guide to organized play) and how your class handles alignment violations. I don't think the rules are terribly unclear here, the morality of an action aside (it may not be really evil if the captive is flat out evil either, depending on your deity). That said, I would have asked you if you wanted to do that as it may potentially violate your alignment (there are spells that tell you if it does), let you go through with it, have you lose your powers, and let you deal with the fallout until the end of the scenario. If the scenario allows for it you could get it fixed mid-game (mechanically handling it, I wouldn't want to slog a game down any more than necessary), and let you know that since it was a deliberate act, it's going to cost a pretty penny.
Your GM IN MY OPINION didn't have the grounds to change your alignment, just to enforce a willful infraction against your alignment which would impact your class abilities. Your action was fairly cold and calculating (consider the Geneva Conventions have rules against killing captives for a reason), especially since you had options that didn't include killing the NPC (coulda knocked the NPC unconscious so you didn't have to deal with the immediate fallout and just taken the PP hit).
Full Disclosure: I know jack-all about the situation. If they were super evil, at worst I'd have raised an eyebrow.
I am generally of the opinion that if you are going to consider it a blanket evil act to kill a prisoner, you must also consider it an evil act to withhold medical treatment from the wounded and dying after fighting has concluded and the wounded are no longer an immediate threat. Failing to admit your responsibility for the life of the defeated enemy does not absolve you of that responsibility.
I'm not making it a blanket evil act to kill a prisoner (or to not even take them.) In the case, though, you've adopted the responsibility first, and the question relates to whether it's justified to abrogate it once adopted.
You can't be held morally responsible for things you have no control over, and the OP's character didn't appear to have the opportunity to prevent his party member from creating the threat. Therefore it shouldn't count against him in this situation any more than a paladin would fall because the party rogue killed an innocent.
It's not my intention to suggest that it's an aggravating factor - only that it's not a mitigating factor. That is:
-The act, in a vacuum, would be slightly evil in my mind, because of the heal and kill. The complication doesn't make MORE evil.-But because the complication was caused by a party member, the act doesn't become LESS evil due to lesser-of-two-evils or for-the-greater-good principles.
That would be a problem if the OP's character killed the prisoner because he had no more information. However, OP's character killed the prisoner because he became a threat. Killing someone who is a threat is morally less wrong than killing someone who is simply of no use to you.
So say the minions had innocent hostages. Would the party member's faux pas entitle / obligate the party to kill the innocents, on the grounds that they are also threats?
|
It's not my intention to suggest that it's an aggravating factor - only that it's not a mitigating factor. That is:
-The act, in a vacuum, would be slightly evil in my mind, because of the heal and kill. The complication doesn't make MORE evil.
-But because the complication was caused by a party member, the act doesn't become LESS evil due to lesser-of-two-evils or for-the-greater-good principles.
Yes, I understand. However, I'm not sure why you don't consider it to be a mitigating factor. Your initial statement was "you caused the harm, doing more bad to uncause the harm doesn't fly," however in this case the person who caused the first harm is not the same as the one who is proposing to do more harm for the greater good. Nor is the second PC in command of the first. I see no reason to make the second PC morally responsible for the first PC's behavior. They have been handed a bad situation through no fault of their own and they're trying to do damage control.
So say the minions had innocent hostages. Would the party member's faux pas entitle / obligate the party to kill the innocents, on the grounds that they are also threats?
You mean if the minions were killed, the hostages were rescued, and the PC then mentioned that he was a pathfinder? Presumably the hostage would not threaten to tell the Hellknights on their rescuers. That's where the threat is coming in - not just that they have the info, but that they indicate an intent to use it. (From the OP's post: One of my party members extends the offer for him to join the Pathfinders, to which he replied "I bet those Hellknights up there would love to hear this eh?") If they do threaten to bring down Hellknights on the party then they have waived their status as innocent bystanders and the party has the right to prevent them from doing so - violently if necessary. Honestly it's pretty stupid of a prisoner to suggest he was going to sell them out - the more sure the party is that he'll do so, the less morally wrong it is to kill him.
I'm not making it a blanket evil act to kill a prisoner (or to not even take them.) In the case, though, you've adopted the responsibility first, and the question relates to whether it's justified to abrogate it once adopted.
I don't believe it's correct to say that you've adopted responsibility for someone by taking them prisoner, because that suggests that it's possible to waive responsibility for someone by leaving them to die. That might not be your intent but it's been voiced by several on this thread. The OP probably could have found an alternative to killing the prisoner so I don't think this was 100% justified, but he has a point that it would almost certainly have been unremarked on if the party had just let their enemies die - and that's not right either.
(consider the Geneva Conventions have rules against killing captives for a reason)
They also have rules that forbid leaving an enemy to bleed out on the ground, probably because they don't want to make it easier to just ignore the wounded than to take them captive.
Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article... shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created. Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered.
Leaving someone to die may feel nicer than patching them up, interrogating them, and then executing them, but it's no less wrong, especially since leaving them to die doesn't give them a chance to seek mercy or redemption.
If a GM makes it impossible for a party to deal with prisoners then they are creating a perverse incentive for the party to not take prisoners (see: 1, 2, 3). Having the occasional execution of a prisoner who proves an ongoing threat - even if the decision is morally dubious - is preferable to me. If you do want to fully express real world morality in the game, that's great, but you need to do so in a way that makes sense, not in a way that unevenly punishes actions that feel wrong while ignoring greater acts of moral negligence.
Whoops on your part.
Nope.
|
You know, my wife's paladin in a home game has figured out the solution to the "tied up captive" dilemma. Approach the party. "We can't let him go, but we can't kill him like a bunch of cowards either. You three take positions so neither of us can escape. Give him his armor and weapons, and I shall fight him to the death. If he wins, he can go. If I win, well, he won't be telling anyone anything. And if he does win, and none of you let him go, I will fight through every denizen of whatever afterlife I am in just to come back and remind you of our bond as brothers in arms."
|
You know, my wife's paladin in a home game has figured out the solution to the "tied up captive" dilemma. Approach the party. "We can't let him go, but we can't kill him like a bunch of cowards either. You three take positions so neither of us can escape. Give him his armor and weapons, and I shall fight him to the death. If he wins, he can go. If I win, well, he won't be telling anyone anything. And if he does win, and none of you let him go, I will fight through every denizen of whatever afterlife I am in just to come back and remind you of our bond as brothers in arms."
Obvious problem to this is, if I surrendered, I know I can't take you. If he chooses to disarm or not go with it, you're still in the 'helpless prisoner' situation.
Party just needs to deal with either having to let him go, or bring him with them.
You know, my wife's paladin in a home game has figured out the solution to the "tied up captive" dilemma. Approach the party. "We can't let him go, but we can't kill him like a bunch of cowards either. You three take positions so neither of us can escape. Give him his armor and weapons, and I shall fight him to the death. If he wins, he can go. If I win, well, he won't be telling anyone anything. And if he does win, and none of you let him go, I will fight through every denizen of whatever afterlife I am in just to come back and remind you of our bond as brothers in arms."
That does require the prisoner to cooperate, unfortunately.
If a group of 4 people killed 10 of my buddies, knocked me out, tied me up, had a "can't let him go, can't kill them" discussion and then decided to give me your offer, my response to the duel request would be "no thanks, prisoner sounds nicer than dead" and you are back to square 1.
Not necessarily. He knows he can't take the whole party. Might be able to take one of you.You know, my wife's paladin in a home game has figured out the solution to the "tied up captive" dilemma. Approach the party. "We can't let him go, but we can't kill him like a bunch of cowards either. You three take positions so neither of us can escape. Give him his armor and weapons, and I shall fight him to the death. If he wins, he can go. If I win, well, he won't be telling anyone anything. And if he does win, and none of you let him go, I will fight through every denizen of whatever afterlife I am in just to come back and remind you of our bond as brothers in arms."Obvious problem to this is, if I surrendered, I know I can't take you. If he chooses to disarm or not go with it, you're still in the 'helpless prisoner' situation.
Party just needs to deal with either having to let him go, or bring him with them.
That's a pretty ballsy prisoner to think he can one-on-one the Paladin that has already cuffed him.
Yes, I understand. However, I'm not sure why you don't consider it to be a mitigating factor. Your initial statement was "you caused the harm, doing more bad to uncause the harm doesn't fly," however in this case the person who caused the first harm is not the same as the one who is proposing to do more harm for the greater good.
You, collectively, as the party, since there are 4-6 characters collectively involved in the situation; I do wish we had the perspective of the other 3-5 here though.
Nor is the second PC in command of the first. I see no reason to make the second PC morally responsible for the first PC's behavior. They have been handed a bad situation through no fault of their own and they're trying to do damage control.
If I am doing so, it's not consciously.
You mean if the minions were killed, the hostages were rescued, and the PC then mentioned that he was a pathfinder? Presumably the hostage would not threaten to tell the Hellknights on their rescuers. That's where the threat is coming in - not just that they have the info, but that they indicate an intent to use it. (From the OP's post: One of my party members extends the offer for him to join the Pathfinders, to which he replied "I bet those Hellknights up there would love to hear this eh?") If they do threaten to bring down Hellknights on the party then they have waived their status as innocent bystanders and the party has the right to prevent them from doing so - violently if necessary.
If they happen to be law-abiding citizens - or, as quite a few River Kingdom-folk do, at least tolerate the Hellknights' lawful tendencies because they do a fair job protecting the area - they might feel some sort of obligation to do so --- and might even make the mistake of planning to do so within earshot of the party. I doubt they'd threaten directly.
The version of the scenario I have in mind is that the minion overhears the plans to kill him, and tries to save his bacon with "What about them? They heard it too, and we kidnapped some of them from Fort Inevitable! Surely the Paralictor would love to hear about Pathfinders in her backyard!"
----
And to the last:
-While the choice is between kill / let die, or take prisoner, there's no default moral position (unless your CoC / guiding philosophy prescribes one.) If this is true of the baby goblin problem, then surely it's true of the prisoner problem.
-But in the same light, each choice itself has a default moral position attached to it. If you adopt the goblin babies, they're off the menu. If you save the cultist from death with intent to interrogate him, killing him is a problem (even if your friends accidentally give him a reason to give you a reason to do it.)
Sandslice: You, collectively, as the party, since there are 4-6 characters collectively involved in the situation; I do wish we had the perspective of the other 3-5 here though.
@Sandslice: The only party member who voiced any opinion on the matter agreed we should kill him. Everyone else was quiet during this brief discussion.
You're looking at this the wrong way my friend...
If you are agents of good, you have been sent into this tower to cleanse the evil...
cue Judge Dredd music
What would these guys be tried for if brought to justice? Would their punishment be death? Likely.
Even a Paladin should be in on this approach. You have been tasked with clearing this tower. Clear it.
No need for prisoners, they have proven their guilt merely by being there.
It is good that you are doing, not evil.
Cleanse the fallen!
and so forth...
Sandslice: You, collectively, as the party, since there are 4-6 characters collectively involved in the situation; I do wish we had the perspective of the other 3-5 here though.
@Sandslice: The only party member who voiced any opinion on the matter agreed we should kill him. Everyone else was quiet during this brief discussion.
Was it the one who exposed your party?
Was it the one who exposed your party?Sandslice: You, collectively, as the party, since there are 4-6 characters collectively involved in the situation; I do wish we had the perspective of the other 3-5 here though.
@Sandslice: The only party member who voiced any opinion on the matter agreed we should kill him. Everyone else was quiet during this brief discussion.
No. That person didn't voice an opinion.
|
|
Yes, I understand. However, I'm not sure why you don't consider it to be a mitigating factor. Your initial statement was "you caused the harm, doing more bad to uncause the harm doesn't fly," however in this case the person who caused the first harm is not the same as the one who is proposing to do more harm for the greater good.You, collectively, as the party, since there are 4-6 characters collectively involved in the situation; I do wish we had the perspective of the other 3-5 here though.
Nor is the second PC in command of the first. I see no reason to make the second PC morally responsible for the first PC's behavior. They have been handed a bad situation through no fault of their own and they're trying to do damage control.If I am doing so, it's not consciously.
By saying that the party is collectively to blame for the first PC blowing their cover, and that this has moral implications for the second PC, you are holding the second PC morally responsible for the first PC's actions. Does that make sense?
If they happen to be law-abiding citizens - or, as quite a few River Kingdom-folk do, at least tolerate the Hellknights' lawful tendencies because they do a fair job protecting the area - they might feel some sort of obligation to do so --- and might even make the mistake of planning to do so within earshot of the party. I doubt they'd threaten directly.
The version of the scenario I have in mind is that the minion overhears the plans to kill him, and tries to save his bacon with "What about them? They heard it too, and we kidnapped some of them from Fort Inevitable! Surely the Paralictor would love to hear about Pathfinders in her backyard!"
That should be easy enough to resolve by diplomacy. If the hostages were kidnapped despite the Hellknights' protection, and the party rescued them, the hostages owe the party more than they owe the Hellknights. There's still a risk that the hostages would tell, but it's relatively small compared to the minion's statement of intent, and therefore not enough to justify killing them in self-defense. This is like the difference between attacking someone who walks past you with a knife in their belt and attacking someone who is waving a knife at you.
-While the choice is between kill / let die, or take prisoner, there's no default moral position (unless your CoC / guiding philosophy prescribes one.) If this is true of the baby goblin problem, then surely it's true of the prisoner problem.
-But in the same light, each choice itself has a default moral position attached to it. If you adopt the goblin babies, they're off the menu. If you save the cultist from death with intent to interrogate him, killing him is a problem (even if your friends accidentally give him a reason to give you a reason to do it.)
I don't think that changing your mind is any more evil than picking either option in the first place. Consistency and keeping your word is more of an issue on the Law/Chaos axis. The exception is if by changing your mind you're increasing the harm associated with your new choice - for example the goblin babies may suffer more if they come to trust you before you kill them, thus making that worse than just killing them outright.
If you take someone prisoner and the results of interrogation show that they are dangerous, or guilty of a serious crime, it is in fact less evil to kill them after the interrogation than to let them die, since the person you're killing is now confirmed dangerous/guilty.