When did performing a Coup de Grace become an "Evil Act" in PFS?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
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.

Aspis. Lying. Thunk Aspis. Lying.

ooc On a more serious note, I would walk from a table if the DM tried to dictate my actions like that and completely remove agency from the player.


Being French, I might give my own two scents (a small private joke) here, as the expression "Coup de Grace" is french in origin.

In fact, the best english translation would be "Mercy killing": it's supposed to be used when your foe is so much in pain after the fight, and his life can't be saved, that you put a final stop to his unnecessary painful agony.

It's not that far from what euthanasia should be, but applied to the battlefield.

So, killing a defenseless foe isn't, strictly speaking, a "coup de grace", as you show no mercy and the foe would have survived without your action.
It isn't surely a good act.
If you need another parallel with IRL situation, think about the Geneva Convention for the protection of prisoners of war.

Was there circumstances and proofs that would have shown that, without a doubt, the captured foe was evil and would have been dangerous is left alive? It's not up to me to judge.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Some Context from the Scenario:
The players have just retrieved a whatsit so that they can trade it to a peaceful tribe deep in the Mwangi jungle for the macguffin. This BBEG is a gentleman from the Aspis Consortium who has decided that it will be easier to just kill the villagers and take the macguffin. When the PCs arrive, they are in the aftermath of a massacre that took place at this person's hands. The "proper authorities" are the few survivors of the massacre (including the village elder) who will be happy to kill him then and there, in cold blood, for his crimes.

In short -- I'm usually on the other side of this discussion, but this is one of the few instances where I would kill the prisoner without compunction. Even my Silver Crusade character, while prefering to hand him over to the villagers alive, would not stop a character from killing him.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Re spoiler.

Spoiler:
Cold blooded? What is that, some sort of anti amphibian speciesm?...

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jack Amy wrote:

The execution of surrendered and unconscious foes is lawful good to some Paladins out there.

Paladin's Code (Torag) wrote:
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.

And good day to you, Jack. The way we look at surrender is a funny thing to some, and I didn't really understand it before I joined the church of the Forge-father. Here's what the prefect explained to me. (She had a pretty solid dwarf accent. Forgive me if I don't lapse into it here.)

"Surrender is an important part of civilized combat; it's the way we can end a fight before one or the other opponent lies dead. It's essential, if victory in the contest is our goal.

"But sometimes, our goal is different. Sometimes, we truly wish to end the life of our foeman. In that case, we would no sooner accept surrender -- even one offered honorably -- than we would accept a goat when shopping for a horse.

"In other circumstances, we are prudent not to believe an offered surrender. There are dark souls out there, and cowards too, who would offer surrender as a tactic, not intending to yield the victory. I liken those people to the dishonest merchants in the marketplaces down by the docks, selling horses riddled with disease or parasites."

It is always considered good form to refuse an offer of surrender clearly. If my foe throws down his sword, I should take a moment to insist that he pick it back up, and allow him to do so without fear of my seizing the opportunity. If he refuses, then my conscience is as clear as my duty.

If I choose to accept a surrender, then I have made a bargain. I have purchased victory, and the cost is my pledge to do no harm to my opponent. Torag holds us responsible for our decisions in this. Killing an innocent who has offered surrender is a serious thing, but so is accepting a surrender of a foe who later commits great crimes.

But no, accepting a surrender and thereafter killing the enemy, to say one thing and straight-way unsay it with a little dagger blade, is never our way. There is a vast right between choosing not to buy a goat, versus stealing it.

May your time in the Grand Lodge be pleasant, and may all your endeavors lead you safely back to it.

Silver Crusade

It depends (to me)

Some foes can never change (demons devils etc.) Most Humanoids have the possibility of change. Some (Trolls, Giants, etc) are too powerful to let wander on their own. All my lawful good & neutral bring (humanoids) back alive for trial.

Dming - I am not your conscience. It is dastardly but not inherently evil to be judge & jury & executioner. It only matters in the rare cases of monks and most paladins.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

I ran this adventure last night. After the druid discovered how badly the BBEG treated his AC, when her velociraptor finally dropped him after a long grueling fight, she did not give her velociraptor the Down command. I did not note that this as an evil act for either the druid or her AC.

spectrevk wrote:

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.

Clearly you have problems with the person playing the fighter. I would recommend you talk this issue out with that person rather than resort to passive-aggressive tactics such as deliberately sabotaging him.

3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
UndeadMitch wrote:
Edit: Alignment thread, everyone take a shot!
Kysune wrote:
Killing someone that you full well know will only go on killing is justifiable (Hitler for example).

Alignment thread AND Hitler. I think that's "do shots until the bottle is dry".

On topic, were I you, I think I'd avoid playing with that GM and the player who played the fighter, as it sounds like you had more issues with the way the GM was running your attempt at homicide and the fighter's attempt to stop you than the alignment issue it may have raised.

-TimD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ask the GM to run Heresy of Man part 1 and try and explain how anyone stays in the society after that scenario.

5/5

Flutter wrote:
UndeadMitch wrote:


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?

Casts anthaul

Tap. Tap TAPS pointy log

Grabs pointy log.

Stop beating me!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
A Dead Horse wrote:
Flutter wrote:
UndeadMitch wrote:


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?

Casts anthaul

Tap. Tap TAPS pointy log

Grabs pointy log.

Stop beating me!

Beatings will continue until moral improves

Silver Crusade 5/5

TimD wrote:
UndeadMitch wrote:
Edit: Alignment thread, everyone take a shot!
Kysune wrote:
Killing someone that you full well know will only go on killing is justifiable (Hitler for example).

Alignment thread AND Hitler. I think that's "do shots until the bottle is dry".

On topic, were I you, I think I'd avoid playing with that GM and the player who played the fighter, as it sounds like you had more issues with the way the GM was running your attempt at homicide and the fighter's attempt to stop you than the alignment issue it may have raised.

-TimD

Ooh, close. It's actually "everyone fnishes their bottle, then runs around with pants on head."

On topic, yeah, I think you hit the actual issue on the head.

Silver Crusade 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Berric Thorne wrote:

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.

[Removed boring alignment stuff]

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.

I didn't say killing him after he's already been defeated makes someone evil. If it were me in the situation, I would want to take him back to let authorities deal with him. If the party (not just one person) disagreed with me and overruled me, it would be okay with me, as long as we made it clean, without torture.

I'm not going to judge someone because they don't want to take the same path as me, and it makes them no less good than me. I mainly piped in to make sure The Weighted Swing didn't get misrepresented. I don't want people confusing us with those crazy Gorumites.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
UndeadMitch wrote:
TimD wrote:
UndeadMitch wrote:
Edit: Alignment thread, everyone take a shot!
Kysune wrote:
Killing someone that you full well know will only go on killing is justifiable (Hitler for example).

Alignment thread AND Hitler. I think that's "do shots until the bottle is dry".

On topic, were I you, I think I'd avoid playing with that GM and the player who played the fighter, as it sounds like you had more issues with the way the GM was running your attempt at homicide and the fighter's attempt to stop you than the alignment issue it may have raised.

-TimD

Ooh, close. It's actually "everyone fnishes their bottle, then runs around with pants on head."

On topic, yeah, I think you hit the actual issue on the head.

Didn't that used to be part of the CSPAN drinking game?

I seem to recall that was what you did if the camera caught a certain now-deceased senator drinking...

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:


Clearly you have problems with the person playing the fighter. I would recommend you talk this issue out with that person rather than resort to passive-aggressive tactics such as deliberately sabotaging him.

This is the real problem here.

Pathfinder is a team game, and your character has explicit orders from the Society to cooperate with his team. If you can't play well with others than you should play a different game.

Racing to see if one PC can tie up the enemy before another PC kills it is not acceptable behavior. Putting the GM in the middle of this situation is in amazingly poor taste. Talk it out like adults and come to a Mutal decision.

And if the fighter was taking a prisoner to complete a faction card objective, you killing the prisoner is explicitly against the rules. Both the PVP rule and the Don't Be A Jerk rule. The rules don't protect your right to kill whomever you please, but they do protect someone from having another player deliberately sabatoge their faction missions.

That being said, I don't think you can so cleanly seperate your out of character motivations with your characters motivations. I don't buy the arguement all that you wanted to get a hit in because you were frustrated, but your character only had the most noble intentions.

Killing a helpless opponent, without consulting your allies, and knowing it is against the wishes of one of them, goes way above "just killing". It is getting really close to killing just for the sake of killing, and if I were the GM, I also would have counted it as an evil action.

Coup-de-grace is not always an evil action, but in this situation the GM is well within their rights to say it counts as one. Puting him in the situation to have to make this ruling is a mean-spirited thing to do to a volunteer judge.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I think we're assigning a lot of motives to the OP all of a sudden...

Dark Archive

Kalindlara wrote:
I think we're assigning a lot of motives to the OP all of a sudden...

The OP was pretty clear about his motive in his post.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

spectrevk wrote:
Jessex wrote:

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.

Fair enough, if you are willing to make that sacrifice, make the sacrifice and pay for the atonement. (It isn't a sacrifice if there is no cost.)

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is clearly more than one side to this story. No I wouldn't count the CDG as an evil act given the circumstances. It sounds like the OP is more upset that the GM 'took a side' on the party's decision. I don't know the gm's reasons so I would suggest simply having a conversation with each other to figure out why the decisions that were made.... were made.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

Sometimes, evil acts are neccesary. That is why the atonement spell exists. Since you are a rogue, it costs you 2 PP (or 500 gold.) Cheap to guarentee that his friends don't get him out. (Or you could take him back to the lodge, where maybe he can be "convinced" to repay the damage he has done with information about the aspis.)

In any case, there is a system for this, and this thread is the reason it exists, because this is what happens when people ignore it.

GtoP wrote:


Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table, but she must warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning must be clear, and the GM must make sure that the player understands the warning and the actions that initiated the warning. The PC should be given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences. We believe a deity would forgive a one-time bad choice as long as the action wasn’t too egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport, etc.). Hence, the GM can issue a warning to the player through a “feeling” he receives from his deity, a vision he is given, his conscience talking to him, or some other similar roleplaying event.

So first you should have received a warning from your diety or consience, and then you could have done whatever. (It is a one time act.)

And that is all that should have happened.

GtoP wrote:


If infractions continue in the course of the scenario or sanctioned module or adventure path, an alignment change may be in order. If the GM deems these continued actions warrant an alignment change, she should note it on the character’s Chronicle sheet at the end of the session in the Conditions Gained box. The character may remove this gained condition through an atonement spell. If the condition is removed, the GM should also note it on the Chronicle sheet.

Now, if you had gone on to slaughter the rest of the guys allies after they surrendered or were helpless, your alignment would shift, and you would need to pay for an atonement.

If you didn't pay for an atonement or if you went on doing this each game as you threatened to do, we move to step 3.

GtoP wrote:


Characters who become wantonly evil, whose actions are deliberate and without motive or provocation, are retired from the campaign. This measure is a last resort; there is more than one way to play a given alignment. If a character has become wantonly evil as defined above, the GM should escalate the report to the convention coordinator, or the local Venture-Captain or Venture-Lieutenant. If they agree with the GM, then the character is deemed wantonly evil and considered removed from the campaign. Again, these measures should be taken as a very last resort.

In the event of a wantonly evil character, record the character as “Dead,” and the person who enters the tracking sheet should check that box as well. If the convention coordinator, Venture-Captain, or Venture-Lieutenant decides the character fits the criteria for being wantonly evil, she will then email the campaign coordinator to advise him of the situation, including the player’s name, Pathfinder Society Number, character name, and email address. She will advise the player of these actions and offer the player the campaign coordinator’s email address so the player may present his case.

The Campaign Coordinator will present all facts to the Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants at large with all names (both player and character) removed. If the majority of Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants feel that the act was wantonly evil and the character is irrevocably evil, then character will remain removed from the campaign. If the majority feel the character should be able to atone for his actions, the campaign coordinator will contact the player and advise him of such. The email may be printed and taken to the next game session so the GM may adjudicate the atonement and document it on the Chronicle sheet of the that game.

So, to actually get removed from game, your GM has to convince a lot of people that you are irredeemably evil (and you get to defend yourself.)

spectrevk wrote:

All I wanted was to at least get in a final cut on this jerk.

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.

You are really not helping your case here. And in fact your second statement, if carried out, would violate don't be a jerk.

spectrevk wrote:

There's no mechanical difference in rewards if we capture or kill in this scenario.

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.

Why would secondary success conditions affect whether or not this is an evil act? They got rid of the whole "just following orders" season 4.

This makes it sound like you are heavily metagaming.

spectrevk wrote:
By comparison, all I had to do was make two 10-foot jumps, one of which involved grabbing onto a tree.

Just so long as this doesn't turn into 10 foot jump / grab a wall thread


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Victor Zajic wrote:
trollbill wrote:


Clearly you have problems with the person playing the fighter. I would recommend you talk this issue out with that person rather than resort to passive-aggressive tactics such as deliberately sabotaging him.

This is the real problem here.

Pathfinder is a team game, and your character has explicit orders from the Society to cooperate with his team. If you can't play well with others than you should play a different game.

Racing to see if one PC can tie up the enemy before another PC kills it is not acceptable behavior. Putting the GM in the middle of this situation is in amazingly poor taste. Talk it out like adults and come to a Mutal decision.

And if the fighter was taking a prisoner to complete a faction card objective, you killing the prisoner is explicitly against the rules. Both the PVP rule and the Don't Be A Jerk rule. The rules don't protect your right to kill whomever you please, but they do protect someone from having another player deliberately sabatoge their faction missions.

That being said, I don't think you can so cleanly seperate your out of character motivations with your characters motivations. I don't buy the arguement all that you wanted to get a hit in because you were frustrated, but your character only had the most noble intentions.

Killing a helpless opponent, without consulting your allies, and knowing it is against the wishes of one of them, goes way above "just killing". It is getting really close to killing just for the sake of killing, and if I were the GM, I also would have counted it as an evil action.

Coup-de-grace is not always an evil action, but in this situation the GM is well within their rights to say it counts as one. Puting him in the situation to have to make this ruling is a mean-spirited thing to do to a volunteer judge.

To be clear:

1. The fighter, who has a history of not being cooperative and mostly being concerned with himself, made a decision to capture alive without discussing it. The main reason I dislike him is that he's an incredibly selfish player and character who has left me holding the bag repeatedly.

2. Of the group, only the Cleric agreed with the Fighter. The two of them argued so long, however, that others gave up just to move on. I'm guilty of being persistent, in this case.

3. The fighter had no in-character reason to capture alive. He's not a member of the Silver Crusade. He has never attempted to complete any faction quests, or roleplay in any way, shape, or form. He has a single catchphrase that he spouts whenever he drops an enemy.

4. Realistically, nobody stabilized the prisoner, so he should have died anyway.

5. Realistically, it is impossible that the fighter set up the ladder and reached the target before I did.

6. As has been explained elsewhere, the target was a mass-murderer.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

As for violating "don't be a jerk", we passed that point sometime around the time that the GM decided that heavily-encumbered fighters climb ladders at the speed of light.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Killing someone who has surrendered or been incapacitated is an evil act.

The fact that he is a mass murderer doesn't make it less evil, it just means you are descending to his level to resolve the problem. However it is a good justification for your to decide that getting rid of him is worth the 500 gp to pay for an atonement to get forgiveness for the evil act.

The fact that it is a one time thing may mean that your other good deeds balance it out and that you don't need to pay for an atonement.

The fact that the other player is not a good role player has absolutely no bearing on whether this is an evil act or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
FLite wrote:

Killing someone who has surrendered or been incapacitated is an evil act.

The fact that he is a mass murderer doesn't make it less evil, it just means you are descending to his level to resolve the problem. However it is a good justification for your to decide that getting rid of him is worth the 500 gp to pay for an atonement to get forgiveness for the evil act.

The fact that it is a one time thing may mean that your other good deeds balance it out and that you don't need to pay for an atonement.

The fact that the other player is not a good role player has absolutely no bearing on whether this is an evil act or not.

Your opinion on good and evil has no real relevance to the PFS interpretation of how the alignment system works.

The other details were provided for the sake of context (as my motives were being called into question by you and others), nothing more.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

spectrevk wrote:
As for violating "don't be a jerk", we passed that point sometime around the time that the GM decided that heavily-encumbered fighters climb ladders at the speed of light.

GM cheating also has no bearing on whether this is an evil act, and is properly resolved by contacting your venture officer and explaining the situation to them and asking them resolve it.

The fact that someone else has been a jerk does not permit you being a jerk, it just means that if you do become a jerk, both of you need to be removed from play.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

spectrevk wrote:
FLite wrote:

Killing someone who has surrendered or been incapacitated is an evil act.

The fact that he is a mass murderer doesn't make it less evil, it just means you are descending to his level to resolve the problem. However it is a good justification for your to decide that getting rid of him is worth the 500 gp to pay for an atonement to get forgiveness for the evil act.

The fact that it is a one time thing may mean that your other good deeds balance it out and that you don't need to pay for an atonement.

The fact that the other player is not a good role player has absolutely no bearing on whether this is an evil act or not.

Your opinion on good and evil has no real relevance to the PFS interpretation of how the alignment system works.

The other details were provided for the sake of context (as my motives were being called into question by you and others), nothing more.

Actually, this is how the alignment system works. One scenario rewards the players for talking an NPC out of falling into evil through engaging in lethal retribution. This indicates that PFS does consider these things to be evil. Also see the rules I posted above from the PFS GtoP.

Silver Crusade

spectrevk wrote:
As for violating "don't be a jerk", we passed that point sometime around the time that the GM decided that heavily-encumbered fighters climb ladders at the speed of light.

I have no idea if you GM was cheating or not, but a fighter in medium armor with a shield is probably only taking a -5 from armor checks at higher levels (assuming masterwork gear). So they can choose the accelerated climb option (-5 on the check) and still take 10 to beat the dc0 check to climb a ladder 10ft per move action. This is assuming a str mod of 0 and no ranks in climb.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

...none of which state that performing a Coup de Grace is an evil act.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
DeVega wrote:
spectrevk wrote:
As for violating "don't be a jerk", we passed that point sometime around the time that the GM decided that heavily-encumbered fighters climb ladders at the speed of light.

I have no idea if you GM was cheating or not, but a fighter in medium armor with a shield is probably only taking a -5 from armor checks at higher levels (assuming masterwork gear). So they can choose the accelerated climb option (-5 on the check) and still take 10 to beat the dc0 check to climb a ladder 10ft per move action. This is assuming a str mod of 0 and no ranks in climb.

He's only 3rd level, so no reduction in armor penalties for him.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

Sleight of hand also doesn't state that stealing from others is a chaotic act, what is your point?

Silver Crusade

spectrevk wrote:


He's only 3rd level, so no reduction in armor penalties for him.

Chainmail has the biggest acp out of medium armor at -5 mw makes it -4. Heavy shield is -2 mw makes it -1. -5 total. No fighter specialness was included in these maths.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

spectrevk wrote:
...none of which state that performing a Coup de Grace is an evil act.
GtoP wrote:


Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table,

If the GM says that coup de grace on a helpless foe is an evil act, it is an evil act.

That is what that sentence means.

One evil act won't doom your character, but it doesn't change that it is an evil act.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
DeVega wrote:
spectrevk wrote:


He's only 3rd level, so no reduction in armor penalties for him.
Chainmail has the biggest acp out of medium armor at -5 mw makes it -4. Heavy shield is -2 mw makes it -1. -5 total. No fighter specialness was included in these maths.

None of his armor is masterwork.

In any case, the ladder had been thrown down from a different tree than the one he needed to access. So reaching the ladder, moving the ladder, and then climbing up the ladder couldn't possibly have been done in two rounds.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
FLite wrote:

Sleight of hand also doesn't state that stealing from others is a chaotic act, what is your point?

What is your point here? Stealing isn't always a chaotic act either. Have you never heard of repossession?

Silver Crusade

spectrevk wrote:

In any case, the ladder had been thrown down from a different tree than the one he needed to access. So reaching the ladder, moving the ladder, and then climbing up the ladder couldn't possibly have been done in two rounds.

Fair enough. It sounds like you have a genuine complaint, so let the appropriate people know. If you wish, let the forum-ites know how it goes down. It's sometimes useful for others when they run into similar problems, but continuing to discuss this here may not be helping your own case as much.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

Taking without permission is not always chaotic. However reposession is a bad example of this. In reposession the person doing the reposession has permission to do so (laid out in the original contract.) Taking without permission may be lawful in some lands (where the laws say a certain person cannot own property) but that wouldn't be stealing.

Likewise, killing may not be evil. Killing in self defense, or in active defense of another for example. But killing after all opponents have been disabled, is not killing in self defense, you have other ways to protect people, killing the guy is just the most convenient way. So you are killing for convenience, which is evil.

It may be justified by his actions, so it is a justified evil act, which means in isolation it is not enough to shift your alignment, but it is still an evil act. That just means you have grounds for arguing that it is a lawful evil act.


wellsmv wrote:
i only use it on kittens and unicorns....

Having seen the unicorn goddess' art, I would not hesitate to kill her.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
FLite wrote:

Taking without permission is not always chaotic. However reposession is a bad example of this. In reposession the person doing the reposession has permission to do so (laid out in the original contract.) Taking without permission may be lawful in some lands (where the laws say a certain person cannot own property) but that wouldn't be stealing.

Likewise, killing may not be evil. Killing in self defense, or in active defense of another for example. But killing after all opponents have been disabled, is not killing in self defense, you have other ways to protect people, killing the guy is just the most convenient way. So you are killing for convenience, which is evil.

It may be justified by his actions, so it is a justified evil act, which means in isolation it is not enough to shift your alignment, but it is still an evil act. That just means you have grounds for arguing that it is a lawful evil act.

Again, you are mistaking your personal views for objective facts. Stop that.

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:
Killing someone who has surrendered or been incapacitated is an evil act.

Then how is there a lawful good empyreal lord of execution?

You have no basis for this statement, at all.

Quote:
The fact that he is a mass murderer doesn't make it less evil

Yes. It does. Doing things to innocent people vs doing them to people who deserve it is a huge part of morality.

Lock a murderer in an 8 by 10 room for 50 years: Warden.

Lock a random innocent person in an 8 by 10 room for 50 years: Psychotic criminal.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Action economy tends to be a little light towards the end of the night once the bad guy has dropped.

Silver Crusade

It's impossible to talk about an alignment system without either letting your own morals color your oppinion or referring to a book which has a list of all alignment infractions along with all edge cases of each infraction, the effects of uninformed decisions, and the exceptions that prove the rule... More often than not, the second option tends to lead directly to the first.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Drogos wrote:
Ask the GM to run Heresy of Man part 1 and try and explain how anyone stays in the society after that scenario.

In my case, by being a CN bard.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

BigNorseWolf wrote:
FLite wrote:
Killing someone who has surrendered or been incapacitated is an evil act.
Then how is there a lawful good empyreal lord of execution?

You mean the one whose symbol is a dove on an axe, whose domains are execution, *judiciousness*, and *responsibility*

Could it be because he executes only when there is no other way, and takes responsibility and atones for every execution? That would be both judicious and responsible.

Yeah, if you cherry pick a single facet of someones personality, you can come up with all sorts of horrible things about them.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

First, CdG is never a good act, but it isn't always an evil one. Not good =/= evil.

As to GM interpretation variance, it's an unfortunate necessity, and ultimately creates what I like to call the alignment interpretation tax. When alignment disagreements happen, the player has to either not authentically RP their character, or they may have to pay for an atonement.

It blows, but it's a reality.

Sovereign Court

The Fourth Horseman wrote:

First, CdG is never a good act, but it isn't always an evil one. Not good =/= evil.

As to GM interpretation variance, it's an unfortunate necessity, and ultimately creates what I like to call the alignment interpretation tax. When alignment disagreements happen, the player has to either not authentically RP their character, or they may have to pay for an atonement.

It blows, but it's a reality.

Agreed fully!

Let's also not forget that a PC needs several alignment warnings before a shift to evil alignment is forced. So an isolated incident like this probably isn't the end of the world.

But it is at least an interesting discussion point.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

BigNorseWolf wrote:
FLite wrote:
The fact that he is a mass murderer doesn't make it less evil

Yes. It does. Doing things to innocent people vs doing them to people who deserve it is a huge part of morality.

Lock a murderer in an 8 by 10 room for 50 years: Warden.

Lock a random innocent person in an 8 by 10 room for 50 years: Psychotic criminal.

Sorry, I had to go do some research for this one.

You tried this exact arguement on Mike Brock in the torture thread. He shot it down there too.

51 to 100 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / When did performing a Coup de Grace become an "Evil Act" in PFS? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.