|
Attitudes like this are why good guys often have a reputation for being f!@&ing morons.
why so he could have a chance to escape and set off the alarm while your back is turned?
Are you saying that your PCs dispense with their morale code as soon as it inconveniences them?
That sounds evil to me.
that's the age old BBEG monologue right there "compassion is your weakness; etc etc etc."
that's the age old BBEG monologue right there "compassion is your weakness; etc etc etc."Attitudes like this are why good guys often have a reputation for being f!@&ing morons.
why so he could have a chance to escape and set off the alarm while your back is turned?
Are you saying that your PCs dispense with their morale code as soon as it inconveniences them?
That sounds evil to me.
There's a fine line between compassion and stupidity, but waking up your enemy and all of his friends, allowing them to arm themselves, and making sure they're "ready" to fight before you proceed to kill them isn't anywhere near it, it's quite clearly in the realm of stupid.
|
|
For someone like a paladin of Shelyn it might be the opposite of stupid.
For a 20th level monk happening by a group of 1HD acolytes sleeping it might be an opportunity to recruit young new recruits and teach them that their kung fu is much weaker than his (kicks their asses as they come at him; half of them join him as they see a superior way)
Honestly killing dudes in their sleep thing being non evil could be at best explained by prisoners escaping their captors after months or years of torture and abuse (i.e. self preservation and freedom)
But cold blooded mission objectives that's evil. Note that neutral aligned creatures probably commit a few acts of evil but you have to call a duck a duck if it quacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR: "For a scenario that clearly isn't this one, it might not be stupid, but it isn't those scenarios so this was pointless."
TL;DR: "For a scenario that clearly isn't this one, it might not be stupid, but it isn't those scenarios so this was pointless."
The scenario is not clearly anything. The acolytes were killed before anything substantive was determined.
Also, it was only just revealed by Ravingdork that the acolytes were actually human and it was only the guards that were Duergar.
|
|
The OP and his group missed an opportunity for a memorable event in the game. Whereas they could have made a multitude of other interesting choices that could have formed a fond memory of that one game night for years to come, making that gaming group stronger as a result, the easy, base, dull, soulless murderhobo option was taken. The OP appears surprised at his female DM uneasiness. I could draw obvious conclusions here but I won't out of respect of our collective intelligence. Ultimately it's the OP's game and if his group likes this play style, who am I to judge.
We know they're not 20th level Monks.
We know none of them are Paladins of Shelyn (that being a Golarion deity, not one for whatever setting 5e uses).
the easy, base, dull, soulless murderhobo option was taken.
Killing =! easy, base, dull, soulless murderhobo option was taken.
The OP and his group missed an opportunity for a memorable event in the game. Whereas they could have made a multitude of other interesting choices that could have formed a fond memory of that one game night for years to come, making that gaming group stronger as a result, the easy, base, dull, soulless murderhobo option was taken. The OP appears surprised at his female DM uneasiness. I could draw obvious conclusions here but I won't out of respect of our collective intelligence. Ultimately it's the OP's game and if his group likes this play style, who am I to judge.
Feel free to draw your conclusion, we are all adult enough to handle it. To hint at something and not say it is more disrespectful.
You mean capital punishment after they were arrested, tried by jury and found guilty?
If you think that's the same as "I spray the room with detect evil and go Judge Dredd on what ever pings"
This isn't "a time of need." This isn't a war. It wasnt a battle. It was a contract killing. A contract that wasn't even on the people that were killed in their sleep. And then AFTER said killing, butchered and pulled apart.
That was just way off point. Stick to the OP.
I quoted the OP in my post, and answered the relevant question by linking it to a modern, identifiable subject. How is that off point?
Besides that, yes, I do think that in a fantasy world where a magically imbued champion of a deity that can detect whether or not someone is 'evil' by simply staring at them really hard for a few seconds, and already knows of their guilt it is okay to execute them while sleeping. The paladin has more tools to determine the guilt and nature of an individual than we do in the real world. He can find a cultist in the den of an evil cult, concentrate on him for a while to detect evil, and at that moment be more certain of his guilt than many juries are when they convict a defendant of a capital crime.
Of course, he can't just kill them because they are evil. He is killing them because they are evil, have joined with his enemies and present a very real danger to his survival, and the safety of the community around him. Butchering the corpse? Who cares. Many Tibetan's bodies are still today disposed of by dismembering, smashing and disemboweling the corpse to feed to the birds in an act called 'Sky Burial.' Smashing up the bodies is in itself not an evil act. Had the paladin been attempting to simply intimidate his enemies with the gruesome display of the bodies then that would have been crossing the line.
So, no, not an evil act; not a good one either.
Killing without dismembering the corpse is a sign of ignorance to a degree in D&D as well, I mean, if they aren't dismembered it's very easy for them to be resurrected or reanimated.
@ Moojii
I would like to explore your position a little more. I have a couple of questions for you.
1) If later on the Paladin discovers that his detect evil ability had malfunctioned, what should he do? In 5th edition you can't detect evil in the same way as in Pathfinder.
2) If detect evil is not reliable would you approach the situation differently?
Killing without dismembering the corpse is a sign of ignorance to a degree in D&D as well, I mean, if they aren't dismembered it's very easy for them to be resurrected or reanimated.
The reason given in the opening post was to make it look like an animal attack.
In 5th edition you need to remove a vital organ to prevent raise dead and resurrection cannot be prevented by dismembering the body.
The reason given in the opening post was to make it look like an animal attack.
In 5th edition you need to remove a vital organ to prevent raise dead and resurrection cannot be prevented by dismembering the body.
I was more meaning as a general observation about how the morality of dismembering a corpse is abit different in a world with resurrection, though I was not aware 5e changed that.
I was more meaning as a general observation about how the morality of dismembering a corpse is abit different in a world with resurrection, though I was not aware 5e changed that.The reason given in the opening post was to make it look like an animal attack.
In 5th edition you need to remove a vital organ to prevent raise dead and resurrection cannot be prevented by dismembering the body.
Isn't it roughly the same in Pathfinder anyway?
Resurrection recreates the entire body so long as you have anything from the dead creature, even the dust they left behind when they were disintegrated.
Raise Dead doesn't replace missing body parts. Therefore if you remove a vital organ (like the heart) then Raising is effectively not an option.
I was more meaning as a general observation about how the morality of dismembering a corpse is abit different in a world with resurrection, though I was not aware 5e changed that.The reason given in the opening post was to make it look like an animal attack.
In 5th edition you need to remove a vital organ to prevent raise dead and resurrection cannot be prevented by dismembering the body.
There are a lot of little differences that can catch you out. I have found most of the changes are for the better. For instance I like that Teleportation is 7th level.
I was more meaning as a general observation about how the morality of dismembering a corpse is abit different in a world with resurrection, though I was not aware 5e changed that.The reason given in the opening post was to make it look like an animal attack.
In 5th edition you need to remove a vital organ to prevent raise dead and resurrection cannot be prevented by dismembering the body.
Isn't it roughly the same in Pathfinder anyway?
Resurrection recreates the entire body so long as you have anything from the dead creature, even the dust they left behind when they were disintegrated.
Raise Dead doesn't replace missing body parts. Therefore if you remove a vital organ (like the heart) then Raising is effectively not an option.
Yes, the difference in that aspect is minor. In Pathfinder it is implied, in 5th edition it is actually stated in the rules.
Isn't it roughly the same in Pathfinder anyway?
Resurrection recreates the entire body so long as you have anything from the dead creature, even the dust they left behind when they were disintegrated.
Raise Dead doesn't replace missing body parts. Therefore if you remove a vital organ (like the heart) then Raising is effectively not an option.
It's unlikely in most settings for average people and mooks to have access to resurrection spells, raise dead is much more accessible.
|
I have noticed none of the "Killing is Evil" Camp has justified why there isn't a slew of Evil animals out there because "Killing is inherently Evil" And if you want to pull the " well they are not sentient" Card, we can use Magical Beast, Lizardfolk, Robots and other such creatures all of which kill for one reason or another. Animals do it all the time with no remorse.. are they all evil? Vermin, such a spiders are SPECIFICALLY engineered to kill in terrible intricate ways, are they Evil? Can you see how applying that blanket term doesnt make a lick of sense? Killing is simply an act of taking life, it is no more evil than eating or breathing it just requires the effort of one being to place upon another.
I have noticed none of the "Killing is Evil" Camp has justified why there isn't a slew of Evil animals out there because "Killing is inherently Evil" And if you want to pull the " well they are not sentient" Card, we can use Magical Beast, Lizardfolk, Robots and other such creatures all of which kill for one reason or another. Animals do it all the time with no remorse.. are they all evil? Vermin, such a spiders are SPECIFICALLY engineered to kill in terrible intricate ways, are they Evil? Can you see how applying that blanket term doesnt make a lick of sense? Killing is simply an act of taking life, it is no more evil than eating or breathing it just requires the effort of one being to place upon another.
I personally think the concept of objective evil ridiculous for reasons such as this.
|
|
To be fair there is objective Deeds/Creatures that are codified in the game but outside of those cases they are generally subjective. Now as far as Killing.. It is something that happens and things do.. So unless you have some proof to label it one of the other the GENERAL act of killing is neutral.. just like farming. Y'know.. that thing commoners do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a 20th level monk happening by a group of 1HD acolytes sleeping it might be an opportunity to recruit young new recruits and teach them that their kung fu is much weaker than his (kicks their asses as they come at him; half of them join him as they see a superior way)
That would never happen, as paladins with that kind of attitude never survive to 20th-level to begin with.
I have noticed none of the "Killing is Evil" Camp has justified why there isn't a slew of Evil animals out there because "Killing is inherently Evil" And if you want to pull the " well they are not sentient" Card, we can use Magical Beast, Lizardfolk, Robots and other such creatures all of which kill for one reason or another. Animals do it all the time with no remorse.. are they all evil? Vermin, such a spiders are SPECIFICALLY engineered to kill in terrible intricate ways, are they Evil? Can you see how applying that blanket term doesnt make a lick of sense? Killing is simply an act of taking life, it is no more evil than eating or breathing it just requires the effort of one being to place upon another.
That is not completely true, the issue was addressed in a different thread and I mentioned that in this thread.
The justification is that only sentient creatures can make morale decisions. Robots and animals with intelligence of 2 or less are not sentient for the purpose of this discussion. Alexd1976 came up with this in and I happened to like it.
|
|
I have noticed none of the "Killing is Evil" Camp has justified why there isn't a slew of Evil animals out there because "Killing is inherently Evil" And if you want to pull the " well they are not sentient" Card, we can use Magical Beast, Lizardfolk, Robots and other such creatures all of which kill for one reason or another. Animals do it all the time with no remorse.. are they all evil? Vermin, such a spiders are SPECIFICALLY engineered to kill in terrible intricate ways, are they Evil? Can you see how applying that blanket term doesnt make a lick of sense? Killing is simply an act of taking life, it is no more evil than eating or breathing it just requires the effort of one being to place upon another.That is not completely true, the issue was addressed in a different thread and I mentioned that in this thread.
The justification is that only sentient creatures can make morale decisions. Robots and animals with intelligence of 2 or less are not sentient for the purpose of this discussion. Alexd1976 came up with this in and I happened to like it.
You completely missed that and in no way did your arguments care for sentience. If the act is evil Period then creatures wouldnt be Neutral.. they would be evil. Also Robots and other such beings are SENTIENT. They actually have more int than most Fighters, Paladins and Barbarian characters.
I find it abit weird that pathfinder's morality is objective but cares about individual intent and level of sentience.
Hrm, it doesnt actually care about Sentience... They (Nebula and I guess whoever prescribes such) made that up. Individual Intent it codified too.
It does care, since it has different rules of morality if you're not sentient, where the rules say their alignment is stuck as neutral. Which means, the "objective" morality of pathfinder changes depending on sentience.
|
|
I don't know if it was brought up yet (12 pages is a lot to wade through), but might I bring up Sarenrae's Paladin code?
- 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.
Sarenrae's Paladin's Code explicitly calls out that, if it isn't a fair fight, the Paladin isn't obligated to treat it as if it were one and can attack without mercy. If a Paladin is allowed to do this, then it cannot be intrinsically Evil, nor even dishonorable since Paladins aren't allowed to fight dishonorably, either.
Yes it's been brought up, but it means the paladin must fight fairly unless he's facing overwhelming opposition, in which case he's to give no quarters.
In the OP's situation this means the paladin MUST allow the acolytes a fair fight.
I don't know if it was brought up yet (12 pages is a lot to wade through), but might I bring up Sarenrae's Paladin code?
- 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.
Sarenrae's Paladin's Code explicitly calls out that, if it isn't a fair fight, the Paladin isn't obligated to treat it as if it were one and can attack without mercy. If a Paladin is allowed to do this, then it cannot be intrinsically Evil, nor even dishonorable since Paladins aren't allowed to fight dishonorably, either.
Yes it's been brought up, but it means the paladin must fight fairly unless he's facing overwhelming opposition, in which case he's to give no quarters.
In the OP's situation this means the paladin MUST allow the acolytes a fair fight.
Really? I would say that being in the enemy's territory surrounded by overwhelming numbers qualifies as "not a fair fight". This would be an appropriate time to strike without mercy.
@ Moojii
I would like to explore your position a little more. I have a couple of questions for you.
1) If later on the Paladin discovers that his detect evil ability had malfunctioned, what should he do? In 5th edition you can't detect evil in the same way as in Pathfinder.
2) If detect evil is not reliable would you approach the situation differently?
I think this is on-topic enough to elaborate on. Lemme know if it isn't!
1. If the paladin is duped, I would have him learn that from his deity. Using signs of disfavor and later nightmares about the slain individual. I would give the paladin insights into who the individual was, and what they were trying to accomplish. Then I would hope that the paladin would want to make up for his actions, maybe getting the poor guy resurrected or performing whatever mission the guy was hiding his alignment for in the first place.
2. If detect evil isn't reliable then the paladin can't very well use it to determine whether or not someone is intrinsically evil. That would have to keep the paladin from slaying a sleeping enemy, too many variables. They might be there to rescue someone else, or to get information about the cult. Maybe they were kidnapped and brainwashed? Way too many variables to feel comfortable butchering them in their sleep. Best option would be to gag them and tie them up one at a time, then hog-tie them all together at the feet, wrapped and tied up in blankets and wearing only their underclothes. Then lock the door as you leave, and jam the lock so only your rogue is getting it open any time soon. It might not be perfect, but a paladin would want to be certain that he is only executing a criminal, not murdering an innocent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps depending on how much the party's been hurt. Desecrating bodies though? No way.
Do you have any game text that references that multilate a corpse is a Evil act? As far as I know, only creating Undead is a Evil act.
MAYBE is not Lawful, but not Evil.
|
Perhaps depending on how much the party's been hurt. Desecrating bodies though? No way.Do you have any game text that references that multilate a corpse is a Evil act? As far as I know, only creating Undead is a Evil act.
MAYBE is not Lawful, but not Evil.
If a ghost or other undead arises due to this mutilation, does it count as an Evil act then ? ;-)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps depending on how much the party's been hurt. Desecrating bodies though? No way.Do you have any game text that references that multilate a corpse is a Evil act? As far as I know, only creating Undead is a Evil act.
MAYBE is not Lawful, but not Evil.
your evil characters must be really evil if your good characters can get away with this
I find it abit weird that pathfinder's morality is objective but cares about individual intent and level of sentience.
I am glad you brought that up. I was wondering whether it was just me who found that difficult to reconcile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have any game text that references that multilate a corpse is a Evil act? As far as I know, only creating Undead is a Evil act.
MAYBE is not Lawful, but not Evil.
This is spurious self contradictory logic. There is no in game reference as to whether mutilating bodies is lawful, neutral or chaotic so your conclusion is invalidated by your own assumptions.
your evil characters must be really evil if your good characters can get away with thisPerhaps depending on how much the party's been hurt. Desecrating bodies though? No way.Do you have any game text that references that multilate a corpse is a Evil act? As far as I know, only creating Undead is a Evil act.
MAYBE is not Lawful, but not Evil.
Perhaps!
Although I suspect the truth is you can't actually tell the difference between his good and evil characters, let alone his neutral and evil characters.
Really Because im sure that there are tons of Mindless Undead and otherwise who are pegged as Evil or whatever and they sure arent sentient.
That is another inconsistency in the alignment rules. The mindless undead in 2nd edition D&D make more sense as they are neutrally aligned.
I think the rationale is that the process of creating mindless undead is an evil act and therefore the end result is an evil abomination. But this means that the alignment of that creature is determined by the actions of someone else and that contradicts another alignment rule that states that alignment is based on the actions of the individual.
Overwhelming numbers of sleeping people.I don't know if it was brought up yet (12 pages is a lot to wade through), but might I bring up Sarenrae's Paladin code?
- 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.
Sarenrae's Paladin's Code explicitly calls out that, if it isn't a fair fight, the Paladin isn't obligated to treat it as if it were one and can attack without mercy. If a Paladin is allowed to do this, then it cannot be intrinsically Evil, nor even dishonorable since Paladins aren't allowed to fight dishonorably, either.
Yes it's been brought up, but it means the paladin must fight fairly unless he's facing overwhelming opposition, in which case he's to give no quarters.
In the OP's situation this means the paladin MUST allow the acolytes a fair fight.
Really? I would say that being in the enemy's territory surrounded by overwhelming numbers qualifies as "not a fair fight". This would be an appropriate time to strike without mercy.
Overwhelming numbers of sleeping enemies.
Fixed that for you. Acolytes are accepted enemies. Killing them while asleep is no worse than killing them awake.
Really Because im sure that there are tons of Mindless Undead and otherwise who are pegged as Evil or whatever and they sure arent sentient.
Yep, it's contradictory but the Core Rulebook says "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral." The dev's then decided to make undead an exception to that rule for mindless undead as they dislike the concept of non-evil undead.
I am glad you brought that up. I was wondering whether it was just me who found that difficult to reconcile.
It's the main reason why most alignment arguments are caused though isn't it? People injecting justifications for different actions despite the fact that only the action itself matters in D&D and Pathfinder and the intent doesn't matter... despite the fact it also does matter at the same time.... Ugh....
Overwhelming numbers of sleeping people.I don't know if it was brought up yet (12 pages is a lot to wade through), but might I bring up Sarenrae's Paladin code?
- 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.
Sarenrae's Paladin's Code explicitly calls out that, if it isn't a fair fight, the Paladin isn't obligated to treat it as if it were one and can attack without mercy. If a Paladin is allowed to do this, then it cannot be intrinsically Evil, nor even dishonorable since Paladins aren't allowed to fight dishonorably, either.
Yes it's been brought up, but it means the paladin must fight fairly unless he's facing overwhelming opposition, in which case he's to give no quarters.
In the OP's situation this means the paladin MUST allow the acolytes a fair fight.
Really? I would say that being in the enemy's territory surrounded by overwhelming numbers qualifies as "not a fair fight". This would be an appropriate time to strike without mercy.
And if you woke them up they'd be overwhelming numbers of awake people.
Which would have been obvious if you'd thought for about half a second before posting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This entire discussion IS back handed insults.
Too many people in this thread practically saying outright that anyone who disagrees with them is morally bankrupt.