|
I was at a core game last night. I'll leave out any story spoilers, but long story short, after a fight around some trees/treehouses, our fighter (who already never @#%^@ing sets up any flanks for my Rogue, and has previously left my archer Ranger to hold the front line and protect squishies) brings down the last guy, a clearly bad dude, about a round before I could catch up to him to get a strike in.
Bear in mind I was already in the trees, as a fairly acrobatic Halfling Rogue, and one of the rope bridges had been cut. The ladders that would have been used to climb more easily had been thrown down by the bad guys.
All I wanted was to at least get in a final cut on this jerk. The Fighter unilaterally decides he's going to tie him up...while he's on the g~#$+~n ground. The GM, who tends to lean towards non-lethal when he plays, seems to favor this plan, and has us "race". In addition to screwing me on an acrobatics/climb combined roll to find an alternate path avoiding the rope bridge, he also somehow rules that this fighter, weighed down in medium armor, with a g+$!%%n bastard sword and a heavy steel shield, manages to collect the ladder, move the ladder, set it up, climb it, and reach the fallen enemy fast enough that we have to roll off initiative to see who gets there first.
By comparison, all I had to do was make two 10-foot jumps, one of which involved grabbing onto a tree.
THEN, he insists that I can't possibly stab the guy while the fighter is tying him up, and that doing so would count as an Evil Act. The fighter, meanwhile, doesn't even really have a goal here; first he wants to turn him over to one authority, then the other. There's no mechanical difference in rewards if we capture or kill in this scenario. I'm pretty sure the GM's ruling falls outside of what is normally considered an "Evil Act", and I'm also pretty sure that there's no way I could have lost that race to the Fighter in the first place due to action economy.
Any thoughts?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your pissed that your GM made it hard for you to murder a helpless person?
Not judging..... just checking.
|
|
Thoughts:
As a high level rogue player, rogues need to set up their own flanks.
With regards to CdG being an Evil Act, this has been done to death already in another thread. Seek and ye' shall find.
That was one example. My point is that he actively anti-cooperates with positioning. I've gone as far as taking risks to tumble into position for flanks, only to have him intentionally move out of them to flank with the Wizard.
Yes, the Wizard.
|
|
Your pissed that your GM made it hard for you to murder a helpless person?
Not judging..... just checking.
A person who tried to kill us, was going to kill/torture a group of innocent people, and who was presumably going to be hung for his crimes regardless. And who was part of the Aspis Consortium, anyway.
|
Some gems insist Coup de gras is an evil act. It's certainly not an official stance, but you do get table variation. as for the rest, iIn a race I would have started in inititive, and the fighter would have been unlikely to meet you in that condition. but again, table variation. If you really have an issue, bring it up with your FLVO, but in general it's unlikely anything will happen. If it bothers you, avoid that fm is the best advice I can offer
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Murdering helpless sentient beings is evil. What is so hard to understand?
Quoting the Core Rulebook "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
Killing an evil man before he can kill again is a sacrifice I was willing to make. Besides, retributive justice isn't Evil in Golarion, it's Neutral. Otherwise Callistria would be a Chaotic Evil deity, not a Chaotic Neutral one.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no argument being made for it being a good action, just a question of whether its an evil action.
Typically killing helpless opponents who have no practical way of threatening you in the future leans towards evil, but I think an argument could be made for it to be a neutral action if there's the right justification.
I don't think the reasoning of "I want to get the last hit" would really qualify as neutral though.
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.
But this is a fine example of GM discretion.
|
|
I quoted the rulebook on the subject. You can argue all you want but it won't change a thing.Killing an evil man before he can kill again is a sacrifice I was willing to make. Besides, retributive justice isn't Evil in Golarion, it's Neutral. Otherwise Callistria would be a Chaotic Evil deity, not a Chaotic Neutral one.Murdering helpless sentient beings is evil. What is so hard to understand?
Quoting the Core Rulebook "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
So did I. Callistria's alignment is a matter of RAW in the Core Rulebook. Nowhere in the passage you quoted does it state that a Coup de Grace is Evil.
|
|
There's no argument being made for it being a good action, just a question of whether its an evil action.
Typically killing helpless opponents who have no practical way of threatening you in the future leans towards evil, but I think an argument could be made for it to be a neutral action if there's the right justification.
I don't think the reasoning of "I want to get the last hit" would really qualify as neutral though.
That was my reason, not the characters. In-character, the enemy was a member of the Aspis Consortium, had attacked a peaceful village, and was in the process of torturing its elders when we interrupted. If left alive, he would likely escape with the Consortium's help, and hurt/kill more people. Also, we were well outside any recognized legal jurisdiction, so this wasn't even an unlawful killing.
|
|
We had a long(ish) conversation about it; there was no effect on any secondary success condition. The reporting simply asked if he was captured/killed or escaped.
The sheer ridiculousness of this fighter becoming the Flash to save the "life" of an enemy NPC with no story significance is mind-boggling. I normally don't consider myself bloodthirsty, but after the experience, I kind of want to kill every humanoid possible the next time he runs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I quoted the rulebook on the subject. You can argue all you want but it won't change a thing.Killing an evil man before he can kill again is a sacrifice I was willing to make. Besides, retributive justice isn't Evil in Golarion, it's Neutral. Otherwise Callistria would be a Chaotic Evil deity, not a Chaotic Neutral one.Murdering helpless sentient beings is evil. What is so hard to understand?
Quoting the Core Rulebook "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
Nothing you quoted has anything to do with Coup De Grace being an evil act or killing that man being evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, killing a guy you don't have to kill is a bit jerky, but not evil. Technically (and I am skirting as far around this can as possible), execution of any captured prisoner—such as after a trial—is on the exact same wavelength. Nothing is forcing the magistrate to kill the guy—he is deciding, based on evidence, that the guy either deserves to die or needs to die to prevent further death. He, too, is "killing when he doesn't have to". But he has reasons. Potentially logical ones, and, regardless of our political views on the subject (and trust me, mine are very strong), accepted by Pathfinder as at worst a solid Neutral justification.
Now, killing him without trial is pretty chaotic, since you're assuming you know better than a magistrate, but no, I wouldn't call it an evil act. Just a bit bloodthirsty. But Gorum and Calistria are both Chaotic Neutral, and they're two of the bloodthirstiest gods in the setting. :P
tl;dr: This isn't murder. It's "nonlawful execution". ;P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ OP: Normally, I'd say it depends on the situation and the GM. As a GM, I would try to figure out why you were killing him. In the scenario you described, I probably wouldn't have ruled it an evil act, but if your character was good I might have shifted him towards neutral or chaotic but not from neutral to evil, but it will vary by GM. Both sides of this argument are beating the RAW drum, but this is something that will fall to table variation. Best thing to do in this situation is to shrug and move on.
I have some characters that try to avoid killing humanoids if at all possible, and have taken feats to ensure that they can avoid needless loss life. On the other hand, I've got characters that only take people alive if they have something to gain from it. But, none of my characters that are willing to kill downed opponents are good or lawful, they are all shades of neutral. But that's just me.
Edit:
I think that you make a good point as to the fact that the person was evil, and was torturing.
Where you lost me was RACING another PC so you could slit the throat before he could tie them up.
That seems a bit less good, and a bit more gleeful killer.
"I want to kill him" vs. "I don't want to kill him" isn't a new competition, and neither side is inherently good or evil because they raced. Again, it's more chaotic than anything ("I don't care what my companion thinks, I'm killing this a+++&*%").
|
|
THEN, he insists that I can't possibly stab the guy while the fighter is tying him up, and that doing so would count as an Evil Act. The fighter, meanwhile, doesn't even really have a goal here; first he wants to turn him over to one authority, then the other. There's no mechanical difference in rewards if we capture or kill in this scenario. I'm pretty sure the GM's ruling falls outside of what is normally considered an "Evil Act", and I'm also pretty sure that there's no way I could have lost that race to the Fighter in the first place due to action economy.
Any thoughts?
Technically, until the fighter finishes tying him up, the guy is not "helpless". While the fighter is in the process of tying him up, nothing is preventing you from attacking him. If the guy was helpless because he's already unconscious, did anybody stabilize him? Or did the fighter just tie up the guy and let him bleed out? (And why would that not be considered just as evil?)
Anyway, one evil act does not change your alignment.
The GM has to warn you if you're about to do something that he considers an evil act (rather than spring it on you as a "Gotcha!"), but there's not really any way he can prevent you from doing it. He can dutifully make a note on your chronicle sheet, and if you continue the pattern, then your alignment shifts and you get reported as dead. But atonement spells and psychotherapy can more than make up for a few "helpless enemy mishaps".
Now, if you're talking about doing something monstrously evil (like slaughter a bunch of orphans so you can raise them as undead minions or eat the wrong cookie), then, sure, you'll go straight to evil and potentially get reported as dead right away. But even then, you should still have the chance to get an atonement cast, as long as you are actually, truly repentant.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Oh well, let's analyze this one bit by bit:
- coup de grace: The combat option is not an evil act. Not unlike swinging your sword around, like a crazed madman, doing so in the middle of the forest is fine. Doing so in the middle of a room filled with small children is not fine.
So lets change the question:
Is it an evil act, to kill a captured enemy, if you have the option to deliver him to proper authority?
Well it is certainly a chaotic act, and might quite likely be evil, depending on the situation. In the scenario you described
Even killing him might be justified, if you had not chance to bring him back to proper authority, but that is not the case here.
Things just become more complicated once enemies surrender, or you can keep them alive before they die from their wounds. Asking the remaining locals if they wanted him dead would have been a legitimate option. And bringing him to the next human authority in the region, could have helped, to improved the reputation of the Society in the area (well thats just RP concern).
Personally given the situation, I am not entirely sure if I would have given you an alignment warning for killing him. That said, it certainly is a grey area, not giving first aid to a bleeding enemy, or letting a stabilized enemy stay unconscious behind with a few surviving locals... the results aren't all that different from killing him yourself but people tend to view it differently.
Considering what the NPC in question was currently doing, when the fight started, I can understand the desire to see him dead.
-
I would have to check the scenario, how long it would have taken to climb up to the platform - and without more details I would be hard pressed to say, that your GM broke any rules.
-
However the whole "I want to kill him while the Fighter is trying to tie him up thing" has quite a number of problems associated with it.
Coup the Grace is a full round action, thus you have to pretty much start your turn pretty close to the helpless enemy. The fighter player might very well, have a different opinion about that, and might very well decide to bull rush, grapple or sunder your weapon. Which would not break the PVP rule, but is pretty likely to brush up against the "don't be a jerk" rule.
Your attempt to kill an NPC, the fighter is actively trying to restrain and bring to some sort of proper authority could a break be interpreted as you breaking the "don't be a jerk rule".
Of course GMs often bring their own points of view to the table, and while we try to be fair and balanced, we usually bring our own experiences to the table.
Whenever it comes to a situation like this, it is usually preferable to talk about the situation as players and come to some sort of solution. If the GM in this case, has informed you that he considers this kind of behavior an evil act, you pretty much have to deal with it.
If it is a dealbreaker for you, I suggest talking to the GM and other players, there is usually a give and take involved. Maybe the fighter doesn't have to take every enemy captive, and can give you the chance for some vengeance?
Even deciding if you want to take an enemy alive, can/should be a group decision.
|
|
If you were playing the scenario that Sebastian mentioned in the spoiler, you have every right to want that NPC dead. This seems like a clear case of table variation.
Also, to be fair to the GM here, the combined acrobatics/climb thing you mentioned is just as much table variation as anything else and, given how it would impact your movement speed, I probably would have required you to make the full long jump distance, which would likely require you to double move to clear the gap. Not knowing how long the GM had you "racing," I can't really comment on the ladder thing, but I will say that it should have been at least 3 rounds of time for the fighter to handle that (move to ladder, standard to pick it up, move to position, standard to set up, double move up the ladder) and that assumes that he free action drops the sword somewhere in there. Realistically, if the fighter wasn't aware that it was a race, it shouldn't have been that fast and, frankly, if you're going to tie up an unconscious foe, there's not much reason to be moving quickly.
|
|
While I fully believe that some characters are so evil they need to die (and that character is definitely one of them...)
Generally once one person has taken control of a captive, they've licked it , its theirs. You killing someone that they've tied up makes them complicit in their murder, which isn't fair to them either from a story telling perspective or in some cases a mechanical one.
But from the sound of it, they definitely had a way they wanted it to go and favored that outcome, which made your character look like a chump and negated your skills, which shouldn't have been done.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Murdering helpless sentient beings is evil. What is so hard to understand?
Quoting the Core Rulebook "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
ALtriusm: I'm putting my life at risk to make the world a better place.. one without him in it.
Respect for life: Only life can pay for life. He took many
Dignity: the lives he took demand justice.
There's a lawful good empyreal lord of executions. Once you accept that, the whole trial thing is a matter of law and chaos, not good and evil. Why should the powerful be the only ones to wield the death penalty? They are no more just or fair than anyone else, and they certainly aren't nearly as knowledgeable about the mans crimes as people who SAW him wiping out and enslaving an entire village.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there really a difference?
You, as adventurers, are often murderers.
So, you sneak up, and kill, outnumber, and kill, use paralyzing spells/abilities/items, and kill, render the unconscious, and kill, or Charm/Dominate/Bluff, and kill.
Is there an "evil" murder, and a "good" murder?
Is it intent?
Who decides intent? The DM, or the Player?
What makes this specific kind of murder, different, than other kinds of murder?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there really a difference?
You, as adventurers, are often murderers.
So, you sneak up, and kill, outnumber, and kill, use paralyzing spells/abilities/items, and kill, render the unconscious, and kill, or Charm/Dominate/Bluff, and kill.
Is there an "evil" murder, and a "good" murder?
Is it intent?
Who decides intent? The DM, or the Player?
What makes this specific kind of murder, different, than other kinds of murder?
Killing someone that you full well know will only go on killing is justifiable (Hitler for example). Either you're saying everyone is evil, which throws out the whole alignment system that D&D and PFS are based on, or that to be "good" would only mean that you roll over and let evil genocide the world.
|
|
Murdering helpless sentient beings is evil. What is so hard to understand?
Quoting the Core Rulebook "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
There's a lawful good empyreal lord of just executions. Once you accept that, the whole trial thing is a matter of law and chaos, not good and evil. Why should the powerful be the only ones to wield the death penalty? They are no more just or fair than anyone else, and they certainly aren't nearly as knowledgeable about the mans crimes as people who SAW him wiping out and enslaving an entire village.
Fixed.
The Weighted Swing does not take pleasure in his grim but necessary task, and those who take the matter of execution too lightly or who sadistically revel in the act may expect retribution from Damerrich’s chosen elimination squad of shield archons, Those of the Heaving Hand.
FWIW, if it was me I'd have brought him in for justice. It sounds like that guy from the example deserved to die, but it should have been done right, by the proper authorities.
-Berric Thorne, paladin of Damerrich (LG archon empyreal lord of executions, judiciousness, and responsibility) 14.
|
One as vile as the offending party clearly deserves death.
There is no question.
I will gladly deliver that punishment myself, no need to grant him chances to escape by delaying what is righteous and just.
Kill him and receive the blessing of Yaezhing.
-Chun Hei,
Paladin of Yaezhing (punisher of the wicked)
|
|
What if you don't know if they will go on killing?
If doing good, is slaying evil, what is the "good" way to murder them?
Is it better to kill them, when they are helpless, or do you allow them a fighting chance, and the possibility of them committing more evil acts, and murdering the innocent?
If they are guilty of shedding innocent blood, then it matters not if they are helpless or have a fighting chance. If it was an accident then that is another thing.
It's not whether someone has a "fighting chance" to defend themselves or not. The issue is that the said evil person has broken an intrinsic law (killing innocent people is a bad thing) and that is grounds for being punished anywhere up to death.
Handing over to authorities or not is a Law/Chaos issue on whether the king or your hand is the rightful judge over enacting justice for those that have been slain by the guilty.
|
|
So, what if they are just an enemy?
They have just tried to kill you, and now, they are knocked unconscious, or paralyzed.
Would it be evil to kill them then?
What if you are in a literally lawless land? Perhaps deep in Mwangi somewhere.
You have no authorities to take them to, and taking them anywhere, puts enough strain, that it can quite literally kill you, or your allies?
Would it be evil to kill them then?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, what if they are just an enemy?
They have just tried to kill you, and now, they are knocked unconscious, or paralyzed.
Would it be evil to kill them then?
What if you are in a literally lawless land? Perhaps deep in Mwangi somewhere.
You have no authorities to take them to, and taking them anywhere, puts enough strain, that it can quite literally kill you, or your allies?
Would it be evil to kill them then?
There was intent to kill. You are the law of the land, you decide whether to finish them or whether they live. If you let them live then you're no longer showing Justice but instead showing Mercy because it was unmerited, given the chance they would have killed you. Neither act is necessarily wrong. You either pay them what is due or forgive them, but if you're forgiving them then you also have to be prepared that the person may try to kill others and if they do kill someone then you shoulder part of the blame for not giving justice when it was due.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, what if they are just an enemy?
They have just tried to kill you, and now, they are knocked unconscious, or paralyzed.
Would it be evil to kill them then?
What if you are in a literally lawless land? Perhaps deep in Mwangi somewhere.
You have no authorities to take them to, and taking them anywhere, puts enough strain, that it can quite literally kill you, or your allies?
Would it be evil to kill them then?
What if we killed him with a fox?
What if we killed him in a box?
What if we killed him in a house?
What if we killed him with a mouse?
All joking aside, it's impossible to definitively answer questions like you are asking. The questions you are asking are completely subjective. [Insert traditional issues with alignment in RPG's] I guess the only real answer to your question, BBTroll, is to ask your GM and expect some table variation.
|
|
Alternate Scenario:
'Bad' guys are claiming to be infectious and dangerous threat to 'local' community days away.
Your entire party fails every Sense Motive check to tell if the 'bad' guys are snowing you or not.
Your entire party fails every *single* Knowledge roll to see if what they are telling you is accurate (it isn't).
Your party is in the wilds, without support, with only the resources on them.
None of us felt 'good' about the actions we felt we had to take, but we felt it was the only viable solution to that situation.
And in terms of RP and character development, it definitely put my character on a path he hadn't considered. Now during fights he'll attempt to stabilize opponents after the fighting is resolved, if possible.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The execution of surrendered and unconscious foes is lawful good to some Paladins out there.
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
FWIW, if it was me I'd have brought him in for justice. It sounds like that guy from the example deserved to die, but it should have been done right, by the proper authorities.
-Berric Thorne, paladin of Damerrich (LG archon empyreal lord of executions, judiciousness, and responsibility) 14.
While that's the position you can expect of a paladin, just because someone else disagrees doesn't make them wrong, evil, or (and this is the kicker) even one iota less good than a paladin.
Lawful good is not the best good
Lawful good is not only doing whats right
Lawful good is not the highest good.
Lawful good is not double good plus.
Lawful good is not better than other kinds of good.
The world is a MUCH better place without that person in it, and he shows why on screen. Getting rid of him yourself is perfectly fine.
|
|
In "grey areas" like this one I would leave it up to the PCs skills.
As a GM I would have had the BBEG plead for life, swearing to change. Promising to turn himself in and never kill again. If the PCs passed a sense motive check, they would know he was lying and killing him would be fair game. However, if they failed the check, the villain would go free; to turn himself in of course.
Situations like this can lead to excessive party bickering and it slows down gameplay. Roll the dice and move on.