Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Of course executioners are evil, that is a strange point to raise in support of your argument.
Wait - what? So - someone who is designated by the gov. to throw the switch on a serial killer is evil? So - Tom Hanks' character in The Green Mile was evil? Same with everyone who ever sat on a jury and sentenced someone to death? Same with every DA & ADA who have gone for the death penalty? Gotcha... no. Just... no.
Not unless you're a total pacifist. Not gonna argue the real world version of that here - but it makes no freakin' sense in Pathfinder. You'd have to have major issues with the very idea of adventurers.
(Of note - before it becomes the focus - I'm actually against the death penalty. In theory I'm for it - but the justice system is imperfect - and I've read of too many cases - while rare - of the wrong guy getting convicted.)
The 5 degrees of Kevin Bacon do not apply to guilt.
Executioners who work for the justice system operate in good faith that the people they kill are guilty. When they find out differently, they go to a special grief counselor, or priest, to deal with their own ethics. Some quit their job and try to find something else. They were not threatened with death, like the guys who worked at the death camps. In medieval times, people were executed for lots of reasons besides being a danger to other people.
As far as the original post, I think many of you have overlooked the fact that the victim in question was an animal. While the situation may be sad from a human perspective, an animal has limited capacity to understand what has happened to its master and the effects of its own actions against the party.
While my character would have left it alone, I still wouldn't say finishing the ape off would warrant anything so drastic as an alignment change. The situation is pretty neutral ground, IMO.You can rest assured that nobody in this thread has overlooked the fact the victim was an animal.
Also, nobody has recommended an alignment change for a once off event.
Actually several people have called this an evil act. You yourself suggested that if they kept it up they would slide towards evil. How can performing an neutral act cause you to slide towards evil?
Another thing to consider this is a combat trained animal. Normal animals usually avoid humans. A combat trained animal does not do this. So now you have a dangerous wild animal that not only does not avoid humans, but is trained to attack them. Chances are very good this animal is going to attack and probably kill a human. While the hunter was alive he could control the ape so that it was not a danger to other humans. Last time I checked being dead gave you a major penalty to handle animal so it would be safe to say the ape is no longer being controlled. That being the case it can be considered a danger to humans. Killing it would not be an evil act.If by that you mean killing the ape was a neutral act I would agree, but it certainly is not a good act. If I was GM I would have no issue with a neutral character acting in this way from time to time, but if it became habitual they would slide towards evil.
The way I view alignments is most thing start out true neutral. In most cases unless you are a sentient creature you can’t have any other alignment. The only exception I can see is maybe outsiders and something like undead whose very existence draws on an aligned force. Most action don’t have any alignment to them they simply are. These are not neutral acts they are unaligned. Other acts have alignment qualities to them. These can be lawful, chaotic, good or evil. Each act with an alignment pulls you towards that alignment. Actions from conflicting alignments can cancel each other out. To gain an alignment you have to have the majority of your actions fall under that alignment. So to be good the majority of your actions have to be good. If you have more unaligned actions than either good or evil you are neutral. The same applies to law and chaos.
Each axis acts like a number line which means it is not a simple binary good/evil, but a sliding scale. Some acts are more weighted than other so carry you further along the line.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Of course executioners are evil, that is a strange point to raise in support of your argument.
Wait - what? So - someone who is designated by the gov. to throw the switch on a serial killer is evil? So - Tom Hanks' character in The Green Mile was evil? Same with everyone who ever sat on a jury and sentenced someone to death? Same with every DA & ADA who have gone for the death penalty? Gotcha... no. Just... no.Not unless you're a total pacifist. Not gonna argue the real world version of that here - but it makes no freakin' sense in Pathfinder. You'd have to have major issues with the very idea of adventurers.
(Of note - before it becomes the focus - I'm actually against the death penalty. In theory I'm for it - but the justice system is imperfect - and I've read of too many cases - while rare - of the wrong guy getting convicted.)
The 5 degrees of Kevin Bacon do not apply to guilt.
Executioners who work for the justice system operate in good faith that the people they kill are guilty. When they find out differently, they go to a special grief counselor, or priest, to deal with their own ethics. Some quit their job and try to find something else. They were not threatened with death, like the guys who worked at the death camps. In medieval times, people were executed for lots of reasons besides being a danger to other people.
Sorry, I gave my word earlier in the thread that I wouldn't discuss this particular topic any further here.
I am happy to discuss topics that are related to the opening post.
As far as the original post, I think many of you have overlooked the fact that the victim in question was an animal. While the situation may be sad from a human perspective, an animal has limited capacity to understand what has happened to its master and the effects of its own actions against the party.
While my character would have left it alone, I still wouldn't say finishing the ape off would warrant anything so drastic as an alignment change. The situation is pretty neutral ground, IMO.You can rest assured that nobody in this thread has overlooked the fact the victim was an animal.
Also, nobody has recommended an alignment change for a once off event.
Actually several people have called this an evil act. You yourself suggested that if they kept it up they would slide towards evil. How can performing an neutral act cause you to slide towards evil?
The way I view alignments is most thing start out true neutral. In most cases unless...Another thing to consider this is a combat trained animal. Normal animals usually avoid humans. A combat trained animal does not do this. So now you have a dangerous wild animal that not only does not avoid humans, but is trained to attack them. Chances are very good this animal is going to attack and probably kill a human. While the hunter was alive he could control the ape so that it was not a danger to other humans. Last time I checked being dead gave you a major penalty to handle animal so it would be safe to say the ape is no longer being controlled. That being the case it can be considered a danger to humans. Killing it would not be an evil act.If by that you mean killing the ape was a neutral act I would agree, but it certainly is not a good act. If I was GM I would have no issue with a neutral character acting in this way from time to time, but if it became habitual they would slide towards evil.
I agree that a series of neutral actions makes a character neutral not evil.
My previous post (which you have quoted) was based on the assumption that not every situation is exactly identical. So what I am referring to is a character's behaviour after a series of very similar events.
Under those circumstances a character who pursues other avenues first and only kills as a last resort is good. A character who weighs up the pros and cons in each case and sometimes deems it necessary to kill without following other paths is neutral. A character who kills as their first instinct is evil.
Does that sound reasonable?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dire animals and dinosaurs are impressed by fire in your games? Okay.
The ape grabbing the body and trying to run off sounds hilarious.
I'd have no issues with good aligned PCs hunting down and killing the trained attack gorilla. If anything, I'd be really surprised if they somehow thought it was a good idea to let it run free.
(Seriously, animal companions can be and are normally trained to fight freaking demons and undead (and other supernatural threats). Good luck trying to scare off something that would fight a balor with something as puny as mere mundane fire.)
Is capture ape and determine if it can be reformed not an option? I'd call this both good and pragmatic.
Killing the ape simply because it is running off with loot = greed/evil.
Do you make your players capture everything they fight or just apes? Just wondering where the line is. I'm also wondering how you think the chaotic part of chaotic good works. I mean Han Solo broke laws, made deals with gangsters and all sorts of shady things, I'd hardly call him evil.
The other question I have is take this scenario: A party of adventurers gets a quest to find a magic widget. The quest leads them to a deep dark cave where they are attacked by goblins. The adventurers kill the goblins and immediately turn evil right? I mean wouldn't you call slaughtering a group of "people" who were only defending their home evil?...or maybe we should acknowledge that we're playing a game and 21st century American ethics may not apply in the strictest sense... I dunno you decide.
Dire animals and dinosaurs are impressed by fire in your games? Okay.
The ape grabbing the body and trying to run off sounds hilarious.
I'd have no issues with good aligned PCs hunting down and killing the trained attack gorilla. If anything, I'd be really surprised if they somehow thought it was a good idea to let it run free.
(Seriously, animal companions can be and are normally trained to fight freaking demons and undead (and other supernatural threats). Good luck trying to scare off something that would fight a balor with something as puny as mere mundane fire.)
It seems reasonable to conclude that dire animals and dinosaurs would be afraid of fire if the fire is large enough for them to notice. Animals are almost universally afraid of fire, the fear centre (for lack of a better word) of the brain in animals has a long evolutionary history that predates dinosaurs. Dinosaurs evolved into birds, which are afraid of fire and dire animals are like mammals, which are afraid of fire.
But since you are an expert on the area and so sure of your position, please educate us. I love learning new things, my expertise is in chemistry but I am interested in other areas of science. Perhaps you could point us to the paleontology paper where this is discussed?
The other question I have is take this scenario: A party of adventurers gets a quest to find a magic widget. The quest leads them to a deep dark cave where they are attacked by goblins. The adventurers kill the goblins and immediately turn evil right? I mean wouldn't you call slaughtering a group of "people" who were only defending their home evil?...or maybe we should acknowledge that we're playing a game and 21st century American ethics may not apply in the strictest sense... I dunno you decide.
The goblins apparently never even tried to speak, if they just atked , then yeah it isnt evil to kill them , you are just defending yourself , if they surrender/run away? Well then now you can talk about it.
Reminds of the time me and my group invaded a lichs region by "accident" because we heard there was treasure there (ofc we didnt know it was someones home only that it had ruins there), then he kidnaped my PC girlfriend and tried using her against us and then fighting us himself.
We destroyed the whole place and killed him (Not that it matters much to a lich anyway).
Fun fact , my PC had the greatest respect for all kinds of mages and would have turned around if the lich had said just a single word about that being his region/laboratory before kidnaping my PCs girlfriend.
I would say we were all neutral and acting in self defense in both sides.
Want to know evil?
So in another party , my group atked some ruins where lived a large group of hobgoblins , it was like 4 against 15/20 or something. We killed them all (again not even one of them tried talking) , after that we started exploring said place.
We found out that there were many women and their kids , part of the party wanted to kill them and part wanted to let them go alive , we decided to let them live in the end ofc.
My PC used detect magic and saw that one of them was carring an important magic item , which i told the party rogue so that he could go get it in stealth mode.
The woman dropped said item in a hole when they notice the rogue, since well they were pissed we killed all the men.
The rogue killed all the women since they pissed him off and would have killed the kids if we didnt stop it.
His justification was this: Hobgoblins are all evil , therefore killing them isnt evil.
Said PC continued with this kind of mentality/actions which led to CE one adventure after and to the player making a new PC.
Is capture ape and determine if it can be reformed not an option? I'd call this both good and pragmatic.
Killing the ape simply because it is running off with loot = greed/evil.
Do you make your players capture everything they fight or just apes? Just wondering where the line is. I'm also wondering how you think the chaotic part of chaotic good works. I mean Han Solo broke laws, made deals with gangsters and all sorts of shady things, I'd hardly call him evil.
The other question I have is take this scenario: A party of adventurers gets a quest to find a magic widget. The quest leads them to a deep dark cave where they are attacked by goblins. The adventurers kill the goblins and immediately turn evil right? I mean wouldn't you call slaughtering a group of "people" who were only defending their home evil?...or maybe we should acknowledge that we're playing a game and 21st century American ethics may not apply in the strictest sense... I dunno you decide.
I can't speak for Chromnos but I can give you my perspective.
In my games viable targets for good characters include creatures who embody evil like demons and non-living beings like undead and golems (although depending on the circumstances that may be classed as damaging property). Good characters may fight in self defence without risking alignment changes, however they would not kill unless forced to. That being said my PCs can do whatever they want at all times, the only catch is that their alignment reflects their behaviour so if they want to stay good (or evil) they need to act that way. I don't even prevent metagaming when I am GM, I give players all the latitude they could wish for and in turn they respect the integrity of the game with no enforcement required.
Within our group we usually play neutral characters, when we do play good characters, they are actually good and would never slaughter a bunch of goblins in order to find a magic widget. Sorry, correction on that: one time a player went from lawful good to chaotic evil over the course of a campaign, but it was always their intention to play a good character who descended into evil and the GM (not me in that case, I was a player) worked with them to facilitate that.
We recently played the Way of the Wicked adventure path and our characters were really diabolical, the difference even between our neutral and evil characters was quote profound. Based on some of the responses in this thread the differences between alignments are trivial, in which case why bother?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Boomerang Nebula
If we are talking about killing a sentient being I can agree. If we are talking about killing an animal I disagree. People kill animals on a daily bases I had a hamburger for dinner last night. While I did not personally kill the cow the meat came from I am equally responsible for the death of the animal. A person who pays for, or facilities an evil act is equally if not more guilty than the person who performs said act. If I hire a person to kill someone everyone involved in the transaction, including myself are equally guilty as the person who pulls the trigger.
I had a hamburger for dinner last night. The fact that I had a western bacon cheese burger for dinner means I hired someone to kill a cow. I do not consider myself evil for having eaten meat from a cow. Nor do I consider the kid who cooked the burger evil. Even the person who actually killed the cow is not evil. Anyone who is not a vegetarian or uses leather or other animal products and considers killing animals an evil act is a hypocrite. I happen to like hamburgers and will continue to eat them, that does not make me evil for continuing to kill animals.
There are circumstances where killing an animal would be considered an evil act. But those circumstances involve more than simply killing an animal. Torturing an animal to death, or slaughtering an entire species would be evil. But killing a dangerous animal that has already attacked you is not evil.
If you accept the fact that an ape is an animal than the situation described in the original post is not an evil act. If someone wanted to argue that an ape may be a sentient creature and should not be considered simply another animal that I could at least see. While I recognize apes are probably more developed than chickens I am not sure they qualify as a sentient being. That would be an entirely different debate.
Dire animals and dinosaurs are impressed by fire in your games? Okay.
The ape grabbing the body and trying to run off sounds hilarious.
I'd have no issues with good aligned PCs hunting down and killing the trained attack gorilla. If anything, I'd be really surprised if they somehow thought it was a good idea to let it run free.
(Seriously, animal companions can be and are normally trained to fight freaking demons and undead (and other supernatural threats). Good luck trying to scare off something that would fight a balor with something as puny as mere mundane fire.)
It seems reasonable to conclude that dire animals and dinosaurs would be afraid of fire if the fire is large enough for them to notice. Animals are almost universally afraid of fire, the fear centre (for lack of a better word) of the brain in animals has a long evolutionary history that predates dinosaurs. Dinosaurs evolved into birds, which are afraid of fire and dire animals are like mammals, which are afraid of fire.
But since you are an expert on the area and so sure of your position, please educate us. I love learning new things, my expertise is in chemistry but I am interested in other areas of science. Perhaps you could point us to the paleontology paper where this is discussed?
Are you serious?
In case you are, no, I am not jumping through those sorts of hoops for you. Second edit: While I doubt such papers detailing the interactions of prehistoric alpha predators and small fires exist due to the impossibility of the study, I also find your request so utterly ridiculous that I'm actually angry at you.
Anyways, here's the stat block for a tyrannosaur.
The most I'd expect a campfire to do against such a creature is draw its attention and piss it off if it gets burned.
An actual forest fire would force it to lay low, but that's the entire habitat turning into a sea of fire, and represents an actual threat to it.
But scaring it off with a torch or even a fireball spell?
Good luck with that.
Edit: Adjusted initial response.
Its a morally ambiguous circumstance.
Animal or not, is it ethical to end a foe who has stopped fighting back? If the enemy in this case wasn't some world threatening villain i'dd say it was pretty evil to kill his all-natural monkey.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't even type this without laughing, so if I break into your house, steal all your valuables, eat your food, if you don't politely ask me to leave when you find me there, you're evil...? I'm going to go out on limb and say you're not from Texas.
And for everyone else, having every swing of a sword being a moral quandary, how tedious and incredibly un-fun.
Its a morally ambiguous circumstance.
Animal or not, is it ethical to end a foe who has stopped fighting back? If the enemy in this case wasn't some world threatening villain i'dd say it was pretty evil to kill his all-natural monkey.
As far as I know none of the chickens, cows or pigs I have eaten were fighting back, nor were they world threatening villains. I also don’t think any of them had every attacked a human. Well maybe the chickens when someone went to get their eggs. Does this make me evil?
While attacking the animal was not a good act, neither was it an evil act. This was a combat trained attack animal. The party had already been fighting it prior to it retreating.
|
As far as I know none of the chickens, cows or pigs I have eaten were fighting back, nor were they world threatening villains. I also don’t think any of them had every attacked a human. Well maybe the chickens when someone went to get their eggs.
Nah - I had chickens growing up - they don't really care - especially if you put out feed before looking for their eggs.
However - I go out of my way to eat only evil chickens/cows/pigs. If you go to specialty stores - evil is right next to the cage-free. Of course - that leads to a moral quandary. Since they charge more for evil beef, does that mean that they're economically incentivized to breed more evil cows? What if those evil cows kill someone? Is my eating evil beef at fault? Should I then only eat beef from very nice cows?
|
I can't even type this without laughing, so if I break into your house, steal all your valuables, eat your food, if you don't politely ask me to leave when you find me there, you're evil...? I'm going to go out on limb and say you're not from Texas.
And for everyone else, having every swing of a sword being a moral quandary, how tedious and incredibly un-fun.
Oh, I don't think I or Boomerang are implying that we can't kick your butt to the curb and/or call the police. But the right thing to do would be to allow you the chance for redemption, and respecting that, while you screwed up, you have just as much a right to life as anyone else.
And I AM from Texas. Suck it, stereotypes!
If something attacks you, then you kill it. That way you survive. You don't kill it, then it will come back and kill you later.
Wound a cougar and leave it to its devices and continue to camp in those same woods for a few weeks and see what happens.
That's not true at all. Animals don't have the capacity to seek revenge. An animal companion might though, since they're smarter than a real animal
I watch animal planet all the time, revenge just is not something animals pursue. They're not smart enough to think that way. Still, I agree with you that it could very well happen in the game, since animal companions possess an intelligence not found in real life animals
Boomerang Nebula
If we are talking about killing a sentient being I can agree. If we are talking about killing an animal I disagree. People kill animals on a daily bases I had a hamburger for dinner last night. While I did not personally kill the cow the meat came from I am equally responsible for the death of the animal. A person who pays for, or facilities an evil act is equally if not more guilty than the person who performs said act. If I hire a person to kill someone everyone involved in the transaction, including myself are equally guilty as the person who pulls the trigger.
I had a hamburger for dinner last night. The fact that I had a western bacon cheese burger for dinner means I hired someone to kill a cow. I do not consider myself evil for having eaten meat from a cow. Nor do I consider the kid who cooked the burger evil. Even the person who actually killed the cow is not evil. Anyone who is not a vegetarian or uses leather or other animal products and considers killing animals an evil act is a hypocrite. I happen to like hamburgers and will continue to eat them, that does not make me evil for continuing to kill animals.
There are circumstances where killing an animal would be considered an evil act. But those circumstances involve more than simply killing an animal. Torturing an animal to death, or slaughtering an entire species would be evil. But killing a dangerous animal that has already attacked you is not evil.
If you accept the fact that an ape is an animal than the situation described in the original post is not an evil act. If someone wanted to argue that an ape may be a sentient creature and should not be considered simply another animal that I could at least see. While I recognize apes are probably more developed than chickens I am not sure they qualify as a sentient being. That would be an entirely different debate.
A well written response. I have nothing further to add.
nonsenseI'm going to go ahead and call this guy a troll who is arguing nonsense.
It sort of sounds like he thinks good characters are all Jesus. His arguments are absurd. I guess all his good characters are disguised celestial outsiders.You obviously forgot about John 2 - where Jesus made a badass whip and proceeded to beat the crap out of the merchants/money-changers who were violating the temple. And then in Matthew 21 when he came back to Jerusalem he did it a 2nd time because they hadn't learned.
(The whole 'turn the other cheek' thing is often taken vastly out of context. It doesn't mean that you should just take a physical beating - it had to do with insults. Culturally at the time - if you slapped someone with the back of the hand you were slapping an inferior - open hand slapping was for an equal in a disagreement. So - the 'turn the other cheek' was in reference to standing your ground against insults and making them respect you for it without replying with insults of your own.)
I read the bible about 20 years ago, but I wasn't aware of the historic context, very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
I can't even type this without laughing, so if I break into your house, steal all your valuables, eat your food, if you don't politely ask me to leave when you find me there, you're evil...? I'm going to go out on limb and say you're not from Texas.
And for everyone else, having every swing of a sword being a moral quandary, how tedious and incredibly un-fun.
Is you house a bunch ruins in the middle of nowhere that should be empty?
Then yeah , you better come foward and say that is your house , not a bunch of buildings/tunnels... in this case full of monsters/undead.
Unless you think people have a magical power of knowing exactly what every other intelligent creature has claimed to be their home or not?
What you think is un-fun is perfectly fine , doesnt mean others will agree with you about. On the tables i usually sit you must think about your actions before you take them and usually there is consequence , which is quite fun to me.
Seriously though, with your gaming philosophy in mind, let's go through some literary "heroes" and see which ones are actually not heroes at all, but soulless tyrants:
Theseus leaps immediately to mind. Invaded the Minotaur's home with the purpose of killing him.
Perseus went to the swamps specifically to kill Calibos.
Rand Al'Thor killed a few Forsaken without ever talking to them, and from surprise.
Superman Killed Doomsday and never once asked Doomsday to stop causing havoc. And really all Doomsday was doing was walking through downtown, and things were getting in his way, then Superman starts pounding on him.
Wow I can't think of a single non-evil hero using that philosophy.
|
|
Seriously though, with your gaming philosophy in mind, let's go through some literary "heroes" and see which ones are actually not heroes at all, but soulless tyrants:
Theseus leaps immediately to mind. Invaded the Minotaur's home with the purpose of killing him.
Perseus went to the swamps specifically to kill Calibos.
Rand Al'Thor killed a few Forsaken without ever talking to them, and from surprise.
Superman Killed Doomsday and never once asked Doomsday to stop causing havoc. And really all Doomsday was doing was walking through downtown, and things were getting in his way, then Superman starts pounding on him.
Wow I can't think of a single non-evil hero using that philosophy.
You seem to be confusing Evil actions with Evil people. I would argue that most heroic characters are neutral. That Superman reference seems out of character, though.
@Boomerang We have laws against killing animals, with few exceptions, food being the largest. The reason you kill something makes all the difference, and in game terms, is the difference between the alignments.
Still, protection is also a valid reason. So were they protecting themselves? Didn't seem like it to me, but GM's handle those things differently. Personally, I feel like killing a fleeing creature is evil, unless you fear it will seek revenge, at which point it becomes rather gray. However, because I don't like my games to get bogged down with alignment debates, I usually let such things slide if they were attacked first. However, if within city limits, there may be legality issues
@Boomerang We have laws against killing animals, with few exceptions, food being the largest. The reason you kill something makes all the difference, and in game terms, is the difference between the alignments.
Still, protection is also a valid reason. So were they protecting themselves? Didn't seem like it to me, but GM's handle those things differently. Personally, I feel like killing a fleeing creature is evil, unless you fear it will seek revenge, at which point it becomes rather gray. However, because I don't like my games to get bogged down with alignment debates, I usually let such things slide if they were attacked first. However, if within city limits, there may be legality issues
You have raised and interesting point there; so far the majority of the debate has been focused on the good versus evil alignment axis. The legality issue raises the lawful versus chaotic axis as well. The opening poster did mention later than the hunter and the ape were working for the town authorities, so that complicates matters.
You seem to be confusing Evil actions with Evil people. I would argue that most heroic characters are neutral. That Superman reference seems out of character, though.Seriously though, with your gaming philosophy in mind, let's go through some literary "heroes" and see which ones are actually not heroes at all, but soulless tyrants:
Theseus leaps immediately to mind. Invaded the Minotaur's home with the purpose of killing him.
Perseus went to the swamps specifically to kill Calibos.
Rand Al'Thor killed a few Forsaken without ever talking to them, and from surprise.
Superman Killed Doomsday and never once asked Doomsday to stop causing havoc. And really all Doomsday was doing was walking through downtown, and things were getting in his way, then Superman starts pounding on him.
Wow I can't think of a single non-evil hero using that philosophy.
It's hard to make ethical judgements on very old legends like the Perseus legend without understanding the historic context. But one act doesn't usually define an alignment.
Rand Al'Thor didn't strike me as a particularly good person. He had some heroic qualities, sure, but I found it hard to sympathise with him.
As far as I know Superman never killed Doomsday, in fact Doomsday is famous for killing Superman! From my fuzzy memory from 20 years ago Superman couldn't defeat Doomsday, after being resurrected somehow (which I don't recall ever being properly explained) he had to use some weird magical technology to banish Doomsday to some abstract dimension/end of time baloney.
The most well known Superman is actually an example of a paragon of good, he goes to great lengths not to kill his enemies. According to Wikipedia the comic writers adopting a no-kill policy in 1940, but seems there has been so many version of Superman over the years you have to first define which one you are talking about!
That's not true at all. Animals don't have the capacity to seek revenge. An animal companion might though, since they're smarter than a real animalIf something attacks you, then you kill it. That way you survive. You don't kill it, then it will come back and kill you later.
Wound a cougar and leave it to its devices and continue to camp in those same woods for a few weeks and see what happens.
Whether it's true or not is up for debate.
In the legends this game is based on however? Our world is FULL of tales- be they tall or not- of this very thing happening with all sorts of predators ranging from wolves to big cats to apes to Orcas.
It is not up for debate, the overwhelming evidence in the real world contradicts your point of view, so I really don't understand where you are coming from at all. Let me summarise what I think your position is and then if you wish you can tell me where I went wrong.
You: in my games animals are vindictive and seek revenge for past grievances. This is not based on real world evidence, it is based on myths and legends (i.e. pure invention). That is the right way to run animals within a game, anybody who plays animals realistically is being silly.
Is that your view?
EDIT: gg I've written a lot; apologies for wall of text...
I think the morality of a pseudo-medieval world is different to 21st century Earth, but who knows what some of your players (OK, mostly one player) were really thinking at the time: I mean, they may have given the top reason, but lots of other reasons for "following through" (or not) have been given in this very thread.
If you are a "good hero", you have a duty of care to those around you and the region at large to stop your fight causing collateral damage; if an enemy runs away mid-combat, then (usually) you stop them as you don't know if they know of reinforcements, and so on. For a given value of Stop (kill/capture/knock out), given the situation.
For an animal it probably depends on how smart/dangerous/skittish the animal appears to be. Some may decide that it is "kinder" to put an animal out of its misery rather than capture it and fail to tame it back (with possibility of escape and rampage, or cooped in a cage for the rest of its life)... they don't know what it might do, but they can make a few guesses and take appropriate action
It's all very situational and in the heat of the moment reactions; I have had characters regret things they have done in the heat of the moment and then try to work things out later. (Hindsight, and armchair psychology is wonderful, isn't it?)
i.e. maybe the Hunter has trained his companion well enough to seek aid for his deadness (after it calms down)? The players may have hunches that "letting the gorilla get away" is either bad for the locale, or just bad for themselves...
... but without their input here (Especially that PC who killed the Hunter and then made after the Ape), we don't know what exactly they were thinking at the time.
A player may seem callous, but what they have done is unconsciously weighed up the options in their head before anyone else, and come to a logical conclusion. I.E. are they good characters at large from evil/neutral authorities in this city? Did this one PC think: "we need to shut this down before more authorities spot we are here" because they were trying to lay low? More info?
Argh, situational ethics is hard! (reminds me of the Ethics class where the "mum kills her baby to save the rest of the family while sneaking away from insert-indigenous-natives-here, because it was crying" scenario, and other screwy-logic "save the cure-for-cancer wheelchair guy from the fire, or your Mom"...)
OFC, one neutral act does not an evil (or neutral) person make, though, if they are good the rest of the time... (but you might want to keep note of ALL this one PC does in future, so you have a reasoned discussion built against the wailing and gnashing of teeth if they start doing more and more questionable things, OR can't give a good reason for an alignment-based act).
OR, keep things loose, and let the roleplay of other players and NPCs warnings steer the flow of the game; maybe plague the PCs with nightmares and guilt of poor baby gorillas without their parent, or finding a dead kid that was just ripped apart by a rampaging ape), to see what player reaction you get...?
*Tangent Aside Question - maybe we need a different thread if one does not already exist*
Where should the line really be drawn between most intelligent animal (not awakened: that's a different thing) and least intelligent humanoid/etc. (not including Feeblemind)?
As in the case of a Gorilla:- INT 1 or 2 for pretty much all animals is an insult to some of the highly intelligent ones, which are capable of taking revenge...
Elephants could also have a higher INT than 2, as they mourn and can plan and take revenge too (any creature that stomps on lion cubs to stop them turning into adult lions that can then come back and attack elephant calves is a PC just waiting to happen...)
Oooh, now I want to play an elephant (or have an elephant companion)!
Superman killed Doomsday. They actually killed each other and in typical comic book fashion neither one really died.
I find it interesting that you mention historical context, it's almost like you're saying we shouldn't apply 21 century ethics to legends of old.
To further prove my point, let's take a look at Torag a Lawful Good god, wants his Paladins to do:
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.
Bold is mine of course, but read that. Even if they run away. Lawful Good god demands that of his Lawful Good Paladins.
|
Superman killed Doomsday. They actually killed each other and in typical comic book fashion neither one really died.
I find it interesting that you mention historical context, it's almost like you're saying we shouldn't apply 21 century ethics to legends of old.
To further prove my point, let's take a look at Torag a Lawful Good god, wants his Paladins to do:
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.Bold is mine of course, but read that. Even if they run away. Lawful Good god demands that of his Lawful Good Paladins.
As has been stated, retreat is not surrender.
That being said, the old tried and true 'all killing is evil' nonsense is rearing its head again.
Death is an evil because it represents a privation of life, that is the absence of a good.
The act of killing however is not intrinsically an evil act as sometimes it is necessary for various reasons. In this case, the ape may be fleeing off into the jungle and putting an end to it might be construed as something unnecessary (but there are dozens and dozens of presented rationales for why it should be destroyed). The morality of the action depends here on those accidents associated with the act, notably are they killing it for an aforementioned good reason (its retreating to raise its master, to gain strength, I wish to eat it, etc) or bad reasons (I want revenge on the monkey, or it'll be hillarious).
To continue onto the subject of 'murder,' Words mean things.
Murder is defined as 'unlawful killing,' and in that regard one has to look beyond just 'what's legal in that particular district' but also to what is licit in a moral law sense (as an example the holocaust was entirely legal in Nazi Germany and was still murder.) Some claim executioners are 'murderers' but in most cases their actions are licit prosecution of crimes and representations of the ultimate punishment of a religious or secular authority (that authorities validity is a point of further discusion, admittedly). This is one of the reasons why the executioner's role is seperated from the individual who sentences. He carries out the sentence, he does not impose it.
For the average heroic adventurer, the issue is murkier. They are in situations where actual legal authority is difficult to come by, and where necessities of life make life-or-death choices a daily thing. Their position is somewhat more akin to a soldier in that regard (from a Christian perspective, keep in mind that while Jesus encountered quite a few soldiers, centurions and the like, he never demanded they cease their profession).
Most Good Adventurers tend to act in a way designed not to maximize death, but to minimize the loss of their lives. Or they operate to prosecute some sort of war against an evil aggressor (if the hobgobs have Evil on their alignment marker they've probably done some pretty nasty crap, not just squatted in ruins).
The concept of an adventurer's rules of engagement (when he fights, when he escalates, when he goes on the offensive, etc) is actually something that should help the player in finding his character's moral focus.
Superman killed Doomsday. They actually killed each other and in typical comic book fashion neither one really died.
I find it interesting that you mention historical context, it's almost like you're saying we shouldn't apply 21 century ethics to legends of old.
To further prove my point, let's take a look at Torag a Lawful Good god, wants his Paladins to do:
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.Bold is mine of course, but read that. Even if they run away. Lawful Good god demands that of his Lawful Good Paladins.
By historical context I meant an example like was raised by Charon's Little Helper where the expression: "turn the other cheek" had a different meaning at the time it was made compared to our common modern interpretation. Also these legends have been told and retold so many times you have to wonder whether they are even remotely close to what the original authors intended.
But to your point: as civilisation advances then you would expect that our understanding of what is an is not ethical would improve. Imagine trying to anticipate and live in accordance with 23rd century ethics. Through our lifetime we have seen issues like gay marriage go from a ridiculous idea to accepted by the majority.
I think your PCs were shocked that opponents could have attachments or feelings.
That's why the setting comes with ALWAYS EVULZ ORCS LOL, so they can have no remorse.
To me, that makes the game very childish and a power fantasy. I prefer creating a more living world with motivations and excuses.
As has been stated, retreat is not surrender.That being said, the old tried and true 'all killing is evil' nonsense is rearing its head again.
Death is an evil because it represents a privation of life, that is the absence of a good.
I haven't seen anyone claim that all killing is evil, that is a strawman argument. The stance of the people who say that the ape should be spared are saying that the default (not intrinsic) status of killing is that it is evil. There is an important distinction there that has already been explained many times over within this thread.
That's not true at all. Animals don't have the capacity to seek revenge. An animal companion might though, since they're smarter than a real animalIf something attacks you, then you kill it. That way you survive. You don't kill it, then it will come back and kill you later.
Wound a cougar and leave it to its devices and continue to camp in those same woods for a few weeks and see what happens.
Whether it's true or not is up for debate.
In the legends this game is based on however? Our world is FULL of tales- be they tall or not- of this very thing happening with all sorts of predators ranging from wolves to big cats to apes to Orcas.
It is not up for debate, the overwhelming evidence in the real world contradicts your point of view, so I really don't understand where you are coming from at all. Let me summarise what I think your position is and then if you wish you can tell me where I went wrong.
You: in my games animals are vindictive and seek revenge for past grievances. This is not based on real world evidence, it is based on myths and legends (i.e. pure invention). That is the right way to run animals within a game, anybody who plays animals realistically is being silly.
Is that your view?
Depends on both the intellect [in this regard I go off my own biases and limited understanding of the real world, as opposed to whether the animal has a 1 vs a 2 Int score, though I suspect the two likely frequently align] and it's nature as I see it based on stories I've heard and things I've read. [I also question your 'facts,' not saying you're wrong but I simply don't know that you're correct either.]
If you kill or wound the family of something like a wolf, an ape, certain big cats or a porpoise [others exist but these come off the top of my head] and don't leave such a massive impression of invulnerability on it such that the creature basically perceive you a a force of...
I see where I went wrong now, I think what you are saying is reasonable, thanks for clarifying.
Hmm, killed a non-sentient animal that had been beating their face in, and then ran. No impact on alignment, but PETa is probably going to revoke their membership and start picketing their castle.
If someone truly believes that an enemy running away should be spared every time, ask them how they would deal with intelligent Trolls...
A small group of Trolls...
One rushes in, hits a PC once, and runs away. Maybe with Spring Attack.
Second Troll does the same... and so on.
Do you show them mercy because they keep running away? If not, why not?
This tactic would result in TPK 100% of the time unless the PC party was able to kill the Troll BEFORE it attacked, and since they were using hit-and-run tactics, the assumption is that the Troll would always be at full HP, so a level 5 group would have to do 64 HP to drop each Troll, every round, to win... (63 HP per troll).
An enemy doesn't magically stop being an enemy just because it is attempting to flee...
If someone truly believes that an enemy running away should be spared every time, ask them how they would deal with intelligent Trolls...
A small group of Trolls...
One rushes in, hits a PC once, and runs away. Maybe with Spring Attack.
Second Troll does the same... and so on.
Do you show them mercy because they keep running away? If not, why not?
This tactic would result in TPK 100% of the time unless the PC party was able to kill the Troll BEFORE it attacked, and since they were using hit-and-run tactics, the assumption is that the Troll would always be at full HP, so a level 5 group would have to do 64 HP to drop each Troll, every round, to win... (63 HP per troll).
An enemy doesn't magically stop being an enemy just because it is attempting to flee...
How do the trolls know the PCs wouldn't attack them as they flee?
Besides being good is not a combat tactic.
If someone truly believes that an enemy running away should be spared every time, ask them how they would deal with intelligent Trolls...
A small group of Trolls...
One rushes in, hits a PC once, and runs away. Maybe with Spring Attack.
Second Troll does the same... and so on.
Do you show them mercy because they keep running away? If not, why not?
This tactic would result in TPK 100% of the time unless the PC party was able to kill the Troll BEFORE it attacked, and since they were using hit-and-run tactics, the assumption is that the Troll would always be at full HP, so a level 5 group would have to do 64 HP to drop each Troll, every round, to win... (63 HP per troll).
An enemy doesn't magically stop being an enemy just because it is attempting to flee...
How do the trolls know the PCs wouldn't attack them as they flee?
Besides being good is not a combat tactic.
Um... the Trolls are just using hit and run tactics, letting their regeneration heal them up before attacking again.
Has nothing to do with them thinking or assuming anything about the PC party.
According to the Bestiary they are fearless and charge head long into battle, there is no mention of hit and run tactics. They also have an intelligence of 6. So why would they use hit and run tactics?
According to the Bestiary they are fearless and charge head long into battle, there is no mention of hit and run tactics. They also have an intelligence of 6. So why would they use hit and run tactics?
Because I asked a question about how the GM involved with the OP would handle it.
Being fearless, and charging into battle (with an INT of 6) in no way precludes the possibility of them employing what some would consider basic strategy.
Especially if said Trolls were working with another monster, or had gained class levels etc etc etc...
So now we have a troll with class levels being directed by a smarter evil monster. Wasn't this worth mentioning beforehand?
So now we have a troll with class levels being directed by a smarter evil monster. Wasn't this worth mentioning beforehand?
Do you actually dispute the point that his example is trying to illustrate, or are you just nitpicking?
And why are the trolls working together, the bestiary says they are usually loners. Are we definitely sure they are trolls?
What is his point trying to illustrate? That GMs can screw over good players?
What is his point trying to illustrate? That GMs can screw over good players?
I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.
My example is just as valid with a single Troll...
As per the Bestiary...
*shrugs* if you wanna argue something, go ahead, I guess.