Okay, let's assume a single troll and I am playing a good character. I would probably let it flee the first time, but if it came back for more I wouldn't let it get away a second time. It has proved itself to be too dangerous. Also while it was away I would heal up. Does that answer your question?
Okay, let's assume a single troll and I am playing a good character. I would probably let it flee the first time, but if it came back for more I wouldn't let it get away a second time. It has proved itself to be too dangerous. Also while it was away I would heal up. Does that answer your question?
Yup.
You have shown that you are not a fool. Good doesn't mean stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For this situation, I vote Neutral act unless there is some evidence of vindictive behavior on the PCs part. This creature was trying to kill them a moment ago.
The Alignment scale shown above is interesting, but the good arguments are nothing more than Lawful and Neutral Evil arguments repeated in flowery language.
For this situation, I vote Neutral act unless there is some evidence of vindictive behavior on the PCs part. This creature was trying to kill them a moment ago.
The Alignment scale shown above is interesting, but the good arguments are nothing more than Lawful and Neutral Evil arguments repeated in flowery language.
Can you expand on your post? I am particularly interested in the part about 'flowery language'.
I wouldn't even consider killing your enemy (retreating, surrendered or otherwise) an act that could AFFECT your alignment.
If you captured them and brought them to trial, chances are they would get the death penalty.
Defending yourself is rarely a crime in these games...
There really isn't a reason to even TALK about alignment when combat is happening, unless you are committing like, war crimes that are to heinous to mention... or something...
*shrugs*
If a GM told me that I was risking an alignment change because I successfully killed an enemy in combat, I would slap him with a fish.
If a GM told me that I was risking an alignment change because I successfully killed an enemy in combat, I would slap him with a fish.
If a GM's NPCs had surrendered, and they managed to survive the round or so of remaining combat to unconditionally surrender (always a crucial point), and then the players killed all the surrendering forces, that'd be an evil act. The combat is over, and the players are simply murdering.
If an opponent lays down their arms and places themselves at the party mercy, that's an indication that they are accepting rule of law and the superiority of the party.
If a GM told me that I was risking an alignment change because I successfully killed an enemy in combat, I would slap him with a fish.If a GM's NPCs had surrendered, and they managed to survive the round or so of remaining combat to unconditionally surrender (always a crucial point), and then the players killed all the surrendering forces, that'd be an evil act. The combat is over, and the players are simply murdering.
If an opponent lays down their arms and places themselves at the party mercy, that's an indication that they are accepting rule of law and the superiority of the party.
I'm inclined to agree with your specific situation that involves the combat having ended. I wouldn't just say "that's evil!", but I would likely comment on it as being... dastardly. If it became a pattern, then there might be a discussion.
I still don't think that killing a fleeing non-sentient enemy should in any way call for an alignment warning. I work at a university, and people kill animals all the time without combat being involved... they aren't evil. Wouldn't killing something that ATTACKED you be even less evil than that?
Immoral, maybe, but not evil.
Also, in a pseudo-medieval society, animals aren't people, so killing them was/is (in game context) rarely considered an evil act.
It's a non-issue, when considering the OP situation.
Kill all the monkeys you want, who cares.
See, if I was feeling mean, really mean in the OP's situation, I'd have the ape try to put the severed head back on his friend, and really play up the whole emotional angle of 'Why you no live?' and give Animal Handling rolls to figure out what the ape's issue was as it stopped fighting and running.
And if the party continued on the path of clearly defined murder, I'd make a note of it and hit them with even more opportunities to just cut loose and murder young padawan (er, goblin babies). And just keep building from there...
See, if I was feeling mean, really mean in the OP's situation, I'd have the ape try to put the severed head back on his friend, and really play up the whole emotional angle of 'Why you no live?' and give Animal Handling rolls to figure out what the ape's issue was as it stopped fighting and running.
And if the party continued on the path of clearly defined murder, I'd make a note of it and hit them with even more opportunities to just cut loose and murder young padawan (er, goblin babies). And just keep building from there...
That... I like.
Play up the pathos.
Wow. You got me right in the feels.
Killing it then would be... um... hrm.
*starting to doubt self about previous posts regarding monkey-murder*
If a GM told me that I was risking an alignment change because I successfully killed an enemy in combat, I would slap him with a fish.If a GM's NPCs had surrendered, and they managed to survive the round or so of remaining combat to unconditionally surrender (always a crucial point), and then the players killed all the surrendering forces, that'd be an evil act. The combat is over, and the players are simply murdering.
If an opponent lays down their arms and places themselves at the party mercy, that's an indication that they are accepting rule of law and the superiority of the party.
Really? So you're saying Torag, a Lawful Good god, wants his Paladins to fall and commit evil acts? If you're confused you can read my post above or read about how One of Torag's tenets for his Paladins is to not allow enemies to surrender.
Really? So you're saying Torag, a Lawful Good god, wants his Paladins to fall and commit evil acts? If you're confused you can read my post above or read about how One of Torag's tenets for his Paladins is to not allow enemies to surrender.
See my comment about 'managed to survive the round or so of remaining combat to unconditionally surrender (always a crucial point)'
Really? So you're saying Torag, a Lawful Good god, wants his Paladins to fall and commit evil acts? If you're confused you can read my post above or read about how One of Torag's tenets for his Paladins is to not allow enemies to surrender.
If a GM told me that I was risking an alignment change because I successfully killed an enemy in combat, I would slap him with a fish.If a GM's NPCs had surrendered, and they managed to survive the round or so of remaining combat to unconditionally surrender (always a crucial point), and then the players killed all the surrendering forces, that'd be an evil act. The combat is over, and the players are simply murdering.
If an opponent lays down their arms and places themselves at the party mercy, that's an indication that they are accepting rule of law and the superiority of the party.
Maybe Torag only considers undead and other similar abominations to be enemies.
I'm going with "You didn't do anything wrong".
If the NPC was an enemy then their actions are justified. If the NPC wasn't the one to attack first (the NPC wasn't hostile at first) then their actions might not be good. In case of the first situation, wanting to kill the ape might not be a good action as it was retreating and not attacking anymore but it isn't exactly an evil thing to do.
If the second situation is true then its an evil thing all around.
I'm going with "You didn't do anything wrong".
If the NPC was an enemy then their actions are justified. If the NPC wasn't the one to attack first (the NPC wasn't hostile at first) then their actions might not be good. In case of the first situation, wanting to kill the ape might not be a good action as it was retreating and not attacking anymore but it isn't exactly an evil thing to do.
If the second situation is true then its an evil thing all around.
Your characters must live in a world where evil is common, and good is rare...
Or maybe he expects his Paladins to have the wisdom to know who warrants compassion and who is irredeemably evil.
I doubt very much he just lets his Paladins have a free for all.
Paladins fall if they kill INT 2 apes who attacked the party?
Yikes.
No thanks, I'll play a rogue.
I'm going with "You didn't do anything wrong".
If the NPC was an enemy then their actions are justified. If the NPC wasn't the one to attack first (the NPC wasn't hostile at first) then their actions might not be good. In case of the first situation, wanting to kill the ape might not be a good action as it was retreating and not attacking anymore but it isn't exactly an evil thing to do.
If the second situation is true then its an evil thing all around.
Your characters must live in a world where evil is common, and good is rare...
Like Middle Earth for instance? Or do you mean where good is really rare?
Like Middle Earth for instance? Or do you mean where good is really rare?I'm going with "You didn't do anything wrong".
If the NPC was an enemy then their actions are justified. If the NPC wasn't the one to attack first (the NPC wasn't hostile at first) then their actions might not be good. In case of the first situation, wanting to kill the ape might not be a good action as it was retreating and not attacking anymore but it isn't exactly an evil thing to do.
If the second situation is true then its an evil thing all around.
Your characters must live in a world where evil is common, and good is rare...
Do you GM games?
Do you even allow Paladins?
I'm going with "You didn't do anything wrong".
If the NPC was an enemy then their actions are justified. If the NPC wasn't the one to attack first (the NPC wasn't hostile at first) then their actions might not be good. In case of the first situation, wanting to kill the ape might not be a good action as it was retreating and not attacking anymore but it isn't exactly an evil thing to do.
If the second situation is true then its an evil thing all around.
Your characters must live in a world where evil is common, and good is rare...
Well no world has more good than evil unless you are playing an evil campaign. If your party consists out of mostly Chaotic Neutrals, a few Chaotic Goods and one Lawful Neutral then yes I have to agree with Boomerang Nebula
Or maybe he expects his Paladins to have the wisdom to know who warrants compassion and who is irredeemably evil.
I doubt very much he just lets his Paladins have a free for all.
I expect my players to play with their allignment and stats in mind. I do not bound them by them. For example one character who was a Paladin decided to drag the body (whom he accidently split into two halves) to a town simple because of a bounty. Afterwards he came across a thief and he decided to castrate him of ONE of this testicals to teach him a lesson. I understood his actions but he also understood that he did not follow his allignment correctly. I'd say that cutting off the hand of the thief makes more sense for a justice type character though its still a bit of a bad thing to do.
But we aren't talking about me here are we :)?
[edit]
I noticed you saying something about falling as a Paladin
Paladins fall if they kill INT 2 apes who attacked the party?
Yikes.
No thanks, I'll play a rogue.
I did not read everything and I am just answering his original post question. That is all.
Being a Paladin is a role playing challenge, however in my games the gods don't just punish they also provide guidance and support. Paladins who stray are given the chance to redeem themselves.
The last paladin I played actually started as a fighter who had to earn the right to be accepted as a Paladin, which he finally achieved at fifth level.
The autocorrect on my phone keeps spelling paladin with a capital 'p', very annoying.
@ Trollingjoker
I think we have a similar philosophy when we GM.
At our table we take turns as GM and we each have different styles. On alignment we tend to have, for lack of a better word: alignment.
@ Trollingjoker
I think we have a similar philosophy when we GM.
At our table we take turns as GM and we each have different styles. On alignment we tend to have, for lack of a better word: alignment.
I agree and we also switch GM's but in a slightly different way.
We have two running campaigns. One week the first and the week after the second and for the third week the first one again and so forth. That way the GM's have enough prep time and we can experience different styles.
That is a good idea.
Now back to the topic of the ape, for those of you who claim the ape is not sentient, and therefore has no rights, how intelligent does a creature need to be to count as sentient?
Now back to the topic of the ape, for those of you who claim the ape is not sentient, and therefore has no rights, how intelligent does a creature need to be to count as sentient?
Non-animal, and 3+ INT also.
Now back to the topic of the ape, for those of you who claim the ape is not sentient, and therefore has no rights, how intelligent does a creature need to be to count as sentient?Non-animal, and 3+ INT also.
The non-animal is false. Dragons and Unicorns are considered to be animals. They are Magical animals.
Also there is also the spell called awaken which makes an animal sentient.
Now back to the topic of the ape, for those of you who claim the ape is not sentient, and therefore has no rights, how intelligent does a creature need to be to count as sentient?Non-animal, and 3+ INT also.The non-animal is false. Dragons and Unicorns are considered to be animals. They are Magical animals.
Also there is also the spell called awaken which makes an animal sentient.
Incorrect. Dragons are not animals, they are Dragons.
Unicorns are also not of the Animal subtype, they are Magical Beasts.
Awaken changes it from Animal... to Magical Beast.
Now back to the topic of the ape, for those of you who claim the ape is not sentient, and therefore has no rights, how intelligent does a creature need to be to count as sentient?Non-animal, and 3+ INT also.The non-animal is false. Dragons and Unicorns are considered to be animals. They are Magical animals.
Also there is also the spell called awaken which makes an animal sentient.
Incorrect. Dragons are not animals, they are Dragons.
Unicorns are also not of the Animal subtype, they are Magical Beasts.
Awaken changes it from Animal... to Magical Beast.
You are correct on the dragon bit. That was my mistake. Also on the other parts but I thought magical beasts were part of the animal type and apparantly they are not. My apologies
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you expand on your post? I am particularly interested in the part about 'flowery language'.For this situation, I vote Neutral act unless there is some evidence of vindictive behavior on the PCs part. This creature was trying to kill them a moment ago.
The Alignment scale shown above is interesting, but the good arguments are nothing more than Lawful and Neutral Evil arguments repeated in flowery language.
what is there to expand upon? This is hardly the first time that the difference between good and evil has been portrayed as good having a long, responsibility-vanquishing dialogue beforehand before doing the exact same thing.
See my comment about 'managed to survive the round or so of remaining combat to unconditionally surrender (always a crucial point)'
Really? So you're saying Torag, a Lawful Good god, wants his Paladins to fall and commit evil acts? If you're confused you can read my post above or read about how One of Torag's tenets for his Paladins is to not allow enemies to surrender.
See Torag's comment about not allowing to surrender.
|
what is there to expand upon? This is hardly the first time that the difference between good and evil has been portrayed as good having a long, responsibility-vanquishing dialogue beforehand before doing the exact same thing.Can you expand on your post? I am particularly interested in the part about 'flowery language'.For this situation, I vote Neutral act unless there is some evidence of vindictive behavior on the PCs part. This creature was trying to kill them a moment ago.
The Alignment scale shown above is interesting, but the good arguments are nothing more than Lawful and Neutral Evil arguments repeated in flowery language.
Oh, I like you.
See Torag's comment about not allowing to surrender.
Then it would be a very busy round or so, wouldn't it?
I'm always amused at how discussions of that one line from Torag's code
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.
Ignore the rest of the sentence.
Surrender can be accepted "when strategy warrants."
Strategy is defined as, among other things, "a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result."
In short, Torag's fine with a paladin accepting a surrender as long it actually furthers the paladin's goals (and last I checked, winning's a goal).
And there's also the whole bit about "yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag."
Simply butchering foes that try to surrender ain't exactly honorable conduct.
(Aside: A Stonelord of Torag is one of the characters on my "want to play" list. I suspect that, barring unusual circumstances, my Stonelord's typical response to "I surrender!" would be "Because of you've committed ____, _____, and _____, I am going to execute you. If you accept that judgment, then hold still and this will be over quickly, and may the gods have mercy on your soul. If you don't accept that judgment, then you better pick that weapon back up.")
It's also worth noting that in most Pathfinder games, the folks you are fighting to the death are usually completely horrible.
what is there to expand upon? This is hardly the first time that the difference between good and evil has been portrayed as good having a long, responsibility-vanquishing dialogue beforehand before doing the exact same thing.Can you expand on your post? I am particularly interested in the part about 'flowery language'.For this situation, I vote Neutral act unless there is some evidence of vindictive behavior on the PCs part. This creature was trying to kill them a moment ago.
The Alignment scale shown above is interesting, but the good arguments are nothing more than Lawful and Neutral Evil arguments repeated in flowery language.
Assuming you were talking about my list of possible examples, I'm still not sure what you mean. I can certainly understand why the LN example could be seen as being the same as the NG or LG, but in what way are any of the G examples similar to LE or NE?
Even setting that aside, you seem to be coming from the perspective that the act of killing is more important to alignment than the intent behind the action, which I disagree with. Most societies make distinctions between complete accidents, negligent manslaughter, aggravated murder, and premeditated murder. In each instance, the same action may occur and in each instance the same result, but we tell them apart by the person's intent (and we try to tell intent by testimony and circumstance). I wrote more "flowery" language* for the last three examples because I hold Good to a higher standard than Evil or Neutral. The Good are expected to think before they act, while the other alignments are more apt to follow their gut with less care to the consequences. Also, those examples were meant as possible examples of how a Good character might justify the killing of a fleeing animal. They were not meant to be taken as factual or ironclad reasoning by any higher authority. Just possible character motives. If you like, I could easily provide several more examples of why characters of any given alignment would not kill a fleeing animal and feel justified as they did so.
*
You are correct on the dragon bit. That was my mistake. Also on the other parts but I thought magical beasts were part of the animal type and apparantly they are not. My apologiesNow back to the topic of the ape, for those of you who claim the ape is not sentient, and therefore has no rights, how intelligent does a creature need to be to count as sentient?Non-animal, and 3+ INT also.The non-animal is false. Dragons and Unicorns are considered to be animals. They are Magical animals.
Also there is also the spell called awaken which makes an animal sentient.
Incorrect. Dragons are not animals, they are Dragons.
Unicorns are also not of the Animal subtype, they are Magical Beasts.
Awaken changes it from Animal... to Magical Beast.
No need to apologize, despite what the rules say, in our games if an animals INT goes to 3+, we grant them sentience for roleplaying purposes.
They still need tricks though.
I'm always amused at how discussions of that one line from Torag's code
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.Ignore the rest of the sentence.
Surrender can be accepted "when strategy warrants."
Strategy is defined as, among other things, "a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result."
In short, Torag's fine with a paladin accepting a surrender as long it actually furthers the paladin's goals (and last I checked, winning's a goal).
And there's also the whole bit about "yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag."
Simply butchering foes that try to surrender ain't exactly honorable conduct.
(Aside: A Stonelord of Torag is one of the characters on my "want to play" list. I suspect that, barring unusual circumstances, my Stonelord's typical response to "I surrender!" would be "Because of you've committed ____, _____, and _____, I am going to execute you. If you accept that judgment, then hold still and this will be over quickly, and may the gods have mercy on your soul. If you don't accept that judgment, then you better pick that weapon back up.")
It's also worth noting that in most Pathfinder games, the folks you are fighting to the death are usually completely horrible.
I figured someone would try to link those sentences. What Torag is saying is that if it has information you need, or you need a bargainin chip, or it has some strategic value leave it alive.
Now you're trying to link that to a sentence that is talking about the direst struggle. What that sentence is saying is that even if you're getting your butt kicked, don't wuss out.
We do agree on your aside. That seems exactly how the situation should be handled.