Destroying an organization utterly, especially in self-defense, is not the same as exterminating all its members no matter what they do. It is also not genocide to kill everyone who actively tries to kill you even if they are all part of the same group. Also ISIS is becoming the new Godwin
What is your view on the PCs? Did they cross the line into evil?
I used the term: straw man correctly. Argumentum ad absurdum is the most common type of straw man argument.Diluting the definition to that extent makes the word meaningless. By that logic killing all the members of the local knitting circle (boasting a whole ten people!) is genocide.That's a nice straw man you've got there.I think you need to look up the definition of Strawman, because that's not it.
Argumentum ad absurdum, perhaps, but not Strawman.
That is incorrect, hence why I told you to look up the definition.
Strawman: Attacking an argument superficially similar to, but findamentally different from the opponent.
Argumentum: Taking an argument to its (il)logical conclusion.
If your argument holds true, then this is the natural ultimate consequence.
If genocide is defined as the killing of ANY "racial, cultural, political, or national" group, then it stands to reason that wiping out a small cultural group (a knitting circle, or people who collect baseball cards, or polka players) is also defined as genocide.
This is clearly ridiculous, which is the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't knitting a cultural thing?Diluting the definition to that extent makes the word meaningless. By that logic killing all the members of the local knitting circle (boasting a whole ten people!) is genocide.The definition listed "national, racial, political, or cultural." "Knitting" wasn't listed among the acceptable groups for defining genocide. ;)
It would only be genocide if you planned on killing all of the knitting groups. :)
The war against ISIS is genocide, they will not stop until ISIS does not exist, you would be naive to think otherwise.
And that's a bad thing...? I do presume that you have seen what ISIS does, right? In the interests of not derailing this thread further, I can PM you some links, if you don't think that they deserve it.
The war against ISIS is genocide, they will not stop until ISIS does not exist, you would be naive to think otherwise.And that's a bad thing...? I do presume that you have seen what ISIS does, right? In the interests of not derailing this thread further, I can PM you some links, if you don't think that they deserve it.
I didn't state my personal view.
ISIS has stated many times that they will commit genocide on the whole world. I have no mercy for them. I think the sad reality is that we will need to commit genocide on ISIS to remove the threat from them and any other group that wishes to follow in their footsteps.
@ Rynjin, you are being silly.
@ Rynjin, you are being silly.
As are you.
... and this is why I play without alignment.
Ah, my apologies. I believed that you were inferring the inverse. I have heard such arguments quite commonly here in the U.S., even amongst a few of the armed forces. Not many of the latter, mind you, because most of them have seen what I refer to.
... and this is why I play without alignment.
I would love to try that for Pathfinder but I don't know how to implement it.
How do you rule on alignment based effects in your games?
I would love to try that for Pathfinder but I don't know how to implement it.
How do you rule on alignment based effects in your games?
There is a section on running games without alignment in Pathfinder Unchained. I personally use the subjective morality option. Makes outsiders so much more interesting when they are based around a role in the setting other than just "I am my alignment".
Ah, my apologies. I believed that you were inferring the inverse. I have heard such arguments quite commonly here in the U.S., even amongst a few of the armed forces. Not many of the latter, mind you, because most of them have seen what I refer to.
Thanks for the apology, it shows that you are a person of great integrity.
But I don't know that it is your fault, it is a common occurence here for people to think I am implying things that I am not, which makes me wonder if my method of communication is slightly different to the majority.
@ Rynjin, you are being silly.As are you.
Really? Okay, sorry...
A paladin accepts honorable surrender.This statment is false.
It would be more accurate to say this statement can be false. I'm sure Paladins of Sarenrae would accept surrender, Torag, not so much.
EDIT: And really this is the point. All Paladins are not equal. This is one of the many reasons you can't have a structured list of this is evil this is good, and apply universally to all situations. I realize this is treading on heresy for these boards, but there are instances where the GM has to evaluate the situation and decide if this situation warrants action. I know, I know it's crazy right? The GM should actually get a say on what happens in the world, even if it pertains to a player character,
|
Was G.I. Joe committing genocide on COBRA? (please say no or I have to rethink my whole life ;) )
PS: they blew up a lot of planes but COBRA soldiers always floated gently to the ground in their nice white parachutes... also, they shot a lot of guns, but it seemed to be a nice laser light show more than anything... (although G.I. Joe: Resolute fixed that in 2008 and used real bullets...) Finally, almost every show saw them take COBRA prisoners... not killing them......
|
|
Well I'm pretty sure slitting throats of sleeping people and dismemberment would be deliberate. Which gets us back to the original point.Motivation does not come into the definition of genocide.It kinda does.
Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."If it said "deliberate and/or coincidental" - then I'd be on board with you.
The killing is deliberate (obviously) - but the extermination of an entire racial group was not. The latter is necessary to qualify as genocide.
Was G.I. Joe committing genocide on COBRA? (please say no or I have to rethink my whole life ;) )
PS: they blew up a lot of planes but COBRA soldiers always floated gently to the ground in their nice white parachutes... also, they shot a lot of guns, but it seemed to be a nice laser light show more than anything... (although G.I. Joe: Resolute fixed that in 2008 and used real bullets...) Finally, almost every show saw them take COBRA prisoners... not killing them......
Did they shoot at the falling parachutists? Or did they obey the Geneva Convention? Details matter!
The killing is deliberate (obviously) - but the extermination of an entire racial group was not. The latter is necessary to qualify as genocide.
I agree with you as far as the PCs go.
When you replied to me I thought you were talking about the situation with ISIS. Have I got that wrong?
|
You did it, by walking into a dark room, come out feeling like crap, but for some reason wanted more.Meh - assume a few hours of a high in said dark room and it's the same as most drugs.
Not hours. Just walk in, then out.
Never explained if it was a pill, injected, snorted, smoked, or a suppository.
Basically, you took a what was equivalent of an elevator ride, then suddenly felt, and looked, horrible. Still, you somehow wanted to do it again.
Somebody did not do their research on drug addiction.
|
|
But I don't know that it is your fault, it is a common occurence here for people to think I am implying things that I am not, which makes me wonder if my method of communication is slightly different to the majority.
It's possible that (as you have mentioned in passing) you're from Australia. While we all speak English - our words probably have slightly different connotations. *shrug*
|
|
You did it, by walking into a dark room, come out feeling like crap, but for some reason wanted more.Meh - assume a few hours of a high in said dark room and it's the same as most drugs.Not hours. Just walk in, then out.
Never explained if it was a pill, injected, snorted, smoked, or a suppository.
Basically, you took a what was equivalent of an elevator ride, then suddenly felt, and looked, horrible. Still, you somehow wanted to do it again.
Somebody did not do their research on drug addiction.
Or just a really blatant case of cheesy propaganda against drugs?
... and this is why I play without alignment.
Me too, for a long time. I use rules very similar to the Unchained Radiant vs. Shadow since 3.5, but I've named it Light vs. Dark.
|
|
Was G.I. Joe committing genocide on COBRA? (please say no or I have to rethink my whole life ;) )
PS: they blew up a lot of planes but COBRA soldiers always floated gently to the ground in their nice white parachutes... also, they shot a lot of guns, but it seemed to be a nice laser light show more than anything... (although G.I. Joe: Resolute fixed that in 2008 and used real bullets...) Finally, almost every show saw them take COBRA prisoners... not killing them......
Did they shoot at the falling parachutists? Or did they obey the Geneva Convention? Details matter!
Of course not! I'm making a point that the show was kids friendly.
Wait a minute: kids friendly = not evil?
GO! :)
|
|
Not hours. Just walk in, then out.
Never explained if it was a pill, injected, snorted, smoked, or a suppository.
Basically, you took a what was equivalent of an elevator ride, then suddenly felt, and looked, horrible. Still, you somehow wanted to do it again.
Somebody did not do their research on drug addiction.
Sounds like the writers were given some direction by the editor: "Don't go into details as to the how, treat the entire drug taking process like a black box - in and out matters, not what's inside"
...and they did just that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A little late to the party on the original question but here are some thoughts on the original matter:
Killing someone in their sleep is dishonorable and cowardly. It is also usually efficient and smart. Just because something is a careful, smart or wise choice of action, doesn't necessarily exempt it from also being evil.
The act of killing is what's evil, and there are circumstances in which we consider it not-evil. Those circumstances are usually limited to the defense of oneself or others.
Killing a bad (evil) person is usually still considered murder (evil) unless that bad person is also attempting to kill you or in the middle of committing an atrocity. It may be legally ok to execute a criminal at any time, but that's not a matter of good/evil.
Following the rules of war is usually a matter of being lawful vs. chaotic, not good vs evil. If the rules of war allow an atrocity, that doesn't make it a non-evil act. Killing enemy soldiers that are actively fighting you is not evil, but most other means are at least a little evil (such as ambushes or poisoning supplies) even though they are smart tactics.
I am not against parties using efficient, cold or cruel tactics. Much like in the real world during war, it is actually very hard for otherwise good people to avoid actions that will haunt them later in life while trying to survive and/or win. Violence usually degenerates into escalating acts of greater evil. It is a great challenge to remain truly good while killing others. Most of us fail that, whether in the imagination of a game or in the line of duty. That's likely why we joke that adventurers really are murder-hobos and why soldiers don't like talking about their experiences.
The DMs problem (reading between the lines) seems to have been with the lack of "challenge" in the situation. The tactic employed by the party made their risk much smaller than the standard reward. The complaint about the act being essentially evil is correct, but I don't think it was the real issue. After all, the mission undertaken was to infiltrate (deception) an enemy camp and murder (assassinate) their leader. If the goal and method are essentially evil to begin with, why is the GM upset that the party continues that line of action with murdering people in their sleep?
Thanks for the apology, it shows that you are a person of great integrity.
Thank you for the compliment, truly, although I view being able to own up to one's mistakes or misconceptions as something that everyone should do. I don't view it as an exceptional trait but rather, necessary. Pride is an impediment that stifles personal growth and it something that I try to keep to a minimum.
You seem to be a man of integrity as well, being able to offer such a compliment on so, shall we say, impassioned of a thread as this one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
I can understand your reasoning, but you lack any evidence in text from the actual game to make this claims. I at least provided some text from the books from the "father" edition of Pathfinder to suport that it's not evil to kill a Evil being.
But in the end nothing of this discussion matter, because Alignment IS one, if not the MOST aspect of the game that changes to game to game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is killing someone with a sniper rifle evil? They're just as helpless as when they're asleep, really. Wartime killing is wartime killing. You may feel better about it if the person is fighting back, but the fact of the matter is you killed a person whether they had a weapon in their hands or not.
Now, one may argue that wartime killing is itself evil, and that may have some merit. The fact that they're asleep, though, has to do with "fairness", not good and evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it may not be evil to kill evil, it is a quick way to have a paladin fall on HOW you combat evil. Several examples of what makes for dishonorable combat are listed including poison, but it does go on to say "and so on".
To a Paladin, yes. The code forces the Paladin to be Lawful Stupid.
I'm sorry you feel that way about being a good person. I don't see it that way at all, but we have a difference in play styles.
I ALWAYS play with Good characters, but the are always Neutral ou Chaotic. Honor have no place in the battlefield.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it may not be evil to kill evil, it is a quick way to have a paladin fall on HOW you combat evil. Several examples of what makes for dishonorable combat are listed including poison, but it does go on to say "and so on".To a Paladin, yes. The code forces the Paladin to be Lawful Stupid.
I've always thought that parts of the Paladin code (no lying/poison etc) weren't because Paladins were Lawful Stupid, nor because they think that such things are inherently wrong.
It's because everyone else knows the Paladin code too.
If some random self-proclaimed adventurer comes into the neighborhood and starts making crazy wild claims about evil plots - everyone is going to be suspicious. The nobles will be wary of them. After all - it's scary to have so much power concentrated in 4-6 individuals - and not all adventurers are such great people.
However - if it's a paladin making such claims - everyone immediately takes him at his word. After all - he's a paladin. The nobles are willing to sit down to a meal with him to discuss it since he'd never poison them. etc. Because of the reputation of paladins he's able to help more people much faster.
In a specific circumstance could a paladin achieve more through lying and/or poison etc? Sure. But it would sully the reputation of paladins everywhere into being just another 'self-proclaimed adventurer' who no one really trusts. (It's a similar reason that a single - albeit rare case - of major police misconduct hurts WAY more than the misconduct itself.)
Haha I feel the same way about rogues vs a bard that picks locks.
No one trusts a rogue. Everyone loves a bard.
Never dump Charisma, my friend. ;D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got to about post 200 before I stopped reading and realized this thread convinced me to Houserule that Detect Alignment spells don't ping just because someone is THINKING along a certain alignment at the time, it will only ping due to actions the creature has taken.
Seems like it would save a hell of a lot of bickering if everyone just knew that when someone pinged evil on a Detect Evil, you knew they had already done some horrible things.
Oh and personally. Killing the evil Dwarves was a Lawful Neutral act in my opinion. They were sent there to kill the leader of the cult by their accepted commander/leader/whatever. Their actions were done with the intent to further the goal they had been given by their accepted leader, and their intent was not to harm obviously innocent people but beings who have been deemed acceptable targets via their Detect Evil.
Is killing someone with a sniper rifle evil? They're just as helpless as when they're asleep, really. Wartime killing is wartime killing. You may feel better about it if the person is fighting back, but the fact of the matter is you killed a person whether they had a weapon in their hands or not.
Now, one may argue that wartime killing is itself evil, and that may have some merit. The fact that they're asleep, though, has to do with "fairness", not good and evil.
I understand your point, but yes, I think the concept of "fairness" , and similar ones, form the foundation of how we separate good and evil. It paints how we view a warrior as either heroic or villainous, a judge as a provider of justice or tyranny, a businessman as having earned honest profit or scammed people, etc.
|
|
I'm sorry you feel that way about being a good person. I don't see it that way at all, but we have a difference in play styles.While it may not be evil to kill evil, it is a quick way to have a paladin fall on HOW you combat evil. Several examples of what makes for dishonorable combat are listed including poison, but it does go on to say "and so on".To a Paladin, yes. The code forces the Paladin to be Lawful Stupid.
Paladins are not just good. Here's what his Code of Conduct says: (Golarion has additional code of conduct items for each deity; see "Faith of [...]" books for details.)
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
|
|
Faiths of Purity:
"Paladins of all faiths have strict moral codes by which they must abide or risk losing their powers: they must protect the innocent, be truthful, respect lawful and just authority, and live with honor at all times. However, paladins of individual faiths live by additional strictures, and draw on specific codes to seal their bonds with their gods— those who violate the codes of their faiths must atone for their deeds or lose their powers."
Here's a few examples for each deity applicable to this thread's subject:
Erastil: "I remember that reputation is everything. Mine is pure and upstanding, and I will repair it if it is broken or tarnished. I stand by my decisions, and live so that none shall have cause to blame me."
Iomedae: "I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
I will suffer death before dishonor."
Sarenrae: "The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.
I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will redeem them by the sword.
I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when words are not enough. I do not flinch from my faith, and do not fear embarrassment. My soul cannot be bought for all the stars in the sky."
Shelyn: "I am peaceful. I come first with a rose. I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.
I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent.
I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be. All things that live love beauty, and I will show beauty’s answer to them.
I see beauty in others. As a rough stone hides a diamond, a drab face may hide the heart of a saint.
I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is lessened."
Torag: "Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag."
Looks like Torag has the toughest stance. However on a bad day I could see Torag being pissed at a pally slicing sleeping targets' throat, but for targets confirmed as evil, looks like it would be good to go for Torag (his stance is "against people's enemies" which could be neutral perhaps even good...) So vs. evil dwarves i.e. RD's case, sounds like Torag would be high-fiving fellow gods up in Heaven for what RD's group did...
Mind you this is Torag... at the exception of Torag and perhaps Erastil, pallies of other deities mentioned above are probably out of line...
So final answer: it's possible that some LG gods would not be offended, and their paladins might get away with killing evil no matter how. However in the majority of cases, dishonor would ensue if a pally kills a sleeping target. The way I'd advocate it, even for a paladin of Torag, would be to neutralize/tie up the sleeping cultists, wake them up one by one, ask them to provide useful info on the leader's weaknesses or die by the sword. Failing to help results in execution. Helping means they are knocked out cold for a few hours. It might sound silly from a real world perspective, but giving a creature a chance to say last words or last prayers in Golarion could mean they repent evil ways and end up being judged towards the Good planes by Pharasma... (says so in Great Beyond, Inner Sea Gods, etc.)
You'd think Torag would want open combat, where there is more glory to be had, not cowardly tactics such as that.