|
I think we long ago came to the point of irreconcilable viewpoints on this subject. Neither group is going to see eye to eye with the other.
I'm in the camp of 'good use of sound tactics' vs. Paladin must do what's right, in his/her mind, even though there is an extremely high probability of getting everyone killed.
If the Paladin is avoiding an unnecessary amount of bloodshed, like not trying to kill everything in sight, and focusing on a quick resolution of their mission, I'm good with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As this situation escalates I would at this point shift everyone's alignment one position toward Chaotic. It is CLEAR this sort of tactic isn't just a one off occurrence but the group's normal mode of operation. If this means the paladin is now fallen so be it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Thinking back on all the characters I've played, this is almost true. Nearly all are ruthless and intelligent. What's more, the vast majority have an anti-hero or "villain" vibe/appearance, even when they are good-aligned--a holdover from my first ten years of roleplaying, which was almost exclusively in the role of the GM/bad guys.
One difference that comes to mind is that my evil characters are far more likely to torture innocent people, whereas my good characters are far less likely to torture anyone at all.
Also, my evil characters treat the other PCs as their pawns, manipulating them into doing the adventure with them. My good characters, on the other hand, see the other PCs as their friends and team mates, and act accordingly. (In either case, I strongly discourage PvP.)
|
RD: I suspect you're not the only one; "being good" seems to be becoming some kind of shackle or obstacle for many gamers these days. I'm starting a campaign in two weeks and I got some resistance from one of the players for writing "Alignment: any good" in the character creation guidelines.
Back in the 80's / 90's that was pretty much the default setting for the game and no one thought twice about it.
|
You say that, but there's a reason "Lawful Stupid" is a thing.I'm in the camp of 'good use of sound tactics' vs. Paladin must do what's right, in his/her mind, even though there is an extremely high probability of getting everyone killed.Actually, there is no one in that second camp ;-)
I wouldn't call ANY of the posts here Stupid. Far from it.
By my reckoning, Lawful Stupid is blind obedience to the law without caring for the consequences, often doubled with being a jerk by imposing one's own alignment choices and behaviors on other PCs, thereby ruining the other players' fun.
The latter is far from restricted to Paladins or LG in my experience.
|
|
5) The discussion is as to whether this kind of tactic is intrinsically evil or dishonorable and, since at least one deity's Paladin Code expressly states that you don't have to pretend it's a fair fight if it isn't and can strike "without mercy", it disproves the hypothesis that this is disallowed for Paladins on the grounds that it is intrinsically evil/dishonorable.
For mercy to be given or refused, it needs to be asked first. Sleeping enemies cannot ask for mercy nor surrender.
Never thought I would see the day when Sarenrae replaced Torag or Ragathiel as preferred deity of the bloodthirsty paladin :-)
|
|
I'm in the camp of 'good use of sound tactics' vs. Paladin must do what's right, in his/her mind, even though there is an extremely high probability of getting everyone killed.You see, "do what's right" is the crux here. Is it "right" to purposefully put yourself in a situation where death of not only yourself, but also your allies, is almost certain? If anything, the Paladin should be the one willing to sacrifice himself for the rest to get away safely. Doing what's "right" includes ensuring that you survive the encounter if possible, so that you can continue doing right and fighting evil. A noble sacrifice is a close second, but sacrifice and suicide are two distinctly different things. So, lets look over the facts:
1) They are deep in enemy territory and already run ragged.
2) They are surrounded by overwhelming numbers that they couldn't hope to beat altogether.
3) They might be able to thin the numbers a bit as they sneak towards the exit.
4) Guilt by association: you can't presume, "maybe some of them are undercover or not so bad" because that would stay your hand in every case and that's bad for a game like this.
5) The discussion is as to whether this kind of tactic is intrinsically evil or dishonorable and, since at least one deity's Paladin Code expressly states that you don't have to pretend it's a fair fight if it isn't and can strike "without mercy", it disproves the hypothesis that this is disallowed for Paladins on the grounds that it is intrinsically evil/dishonorable.Now, killing a small handful of enemies that aren't near their reinforcements, in their sleep, would be a completely different story, but, in the case at hand, all evidence points to it being not a violation and, in fact, insisting on waking them up and putting your allies in an almost certainly fatal situation is more of a violation.
I think we are on the same page Kazaan, but just to clarify:
I don't consider their use of tactics as a bad thing. The Paladin being ok with mutilating the dead notwithstanding, I support their actions while being severely outnumbered. I don't consider their overall use of tactics evil, it boils down to time/place/intent/actions for me.
Time: What timeframe did they have to work with in order to accomplish their mission?
Place: Their mission puts them within an enemy occupied stronghold who have access to more resources than the PC's, i.e. Greater numbers of combatants, reinforcements, supplies and so on.
Intent: Is it the PC's intention to find as many sleeping personnel as they can and murderhobo their way to victory or is it more of a precision strike with thinning out the enemy and finding their primary target in a reasonable manner.
Actions: Minimize contact or maximize attrition? Defile the dead for amusement or would it actually serve a tactical purpose?
|
|
In the heat of battle it's hard to make such a long analysis. Therefore it's common for a paladin to take a role of leadership and make it 100% clear that these kind of lowly acts won't be committed...
If you're a 'whipped' paladin you might bow down to the LN fighter or TN rogue, but that kind of mediocre paladinhood is sad... you're better off playing something else than a paladin if the code is a pain to you.
In a similar active thread, there's a samurai that keeps beating up on other party members and issuing threats to fellow party members that he might do things in their sleep. Yeah... another example of "should not be playing this right now..."
|
|
There is nothing lowly about taking out a finite number of enemy personnel in order to ensure successful completion of your mission. Poisoning the strongholds water/food supply I could understand, but the elimination of a handful of personnel, no.
The Paladin that wanted to complicate the groups situation would probably be voted down as to what will and will not be authorized based on the circumstances. As long as they were not going to go all dark side on their collective asses, the Paladin should be fine with a precision strike.
|
|
Yes. He could have gotten a pass if the throat slitting would have been done professionally and respectfully. Some hunters say a prayer when they mercy kill a game they just downed for crying out loud. If you're killing actual humans in their sleep, an a freaggin' kill mission, you should at least ask for forgiveness to your god as you do it. Paladin-speaking of course... not necessarily other classes (although I would see a devout and righteous commoner feel very tainted by the act as well... think of a Amish farmer having to do this, for instance)
|
|
I can agree to that, as far as the Paladin goes. Since we have a lack of the finer details, the Paladin may or may not have done something like that.
Just keep in mind that, as most of us can attest to, people handle Paladins differently from one table to the next. I don't think most would see a Paladin poisoning a water/food supply as an honorable act or even a good one for that matter.
As an aside, you really need to shave your avatar's goatee man, seriously ;)
Here is another point murder off 10 guys to save the group .. or die. 99.9% of people would kill them an move on.
But this is a game where we try to play outside normal morals .. it truly comes down to the way people want to play their character an if they truly can uphold the Game morals they set for it.
|
|
I can agree to that, as far as the Paladin goes. Since we have a lack of the finer details, the Paladin may or may not have done something like that.
Just keep in mind that, as most of us can attest to, people handle Paladins differently from one table to the next. I don't think most would see a Paladin poisoning a water/food supply as an honorable act or even a good one for that matter.
As an aside, you really need to shave your avatar's goatee man, seriously ;)
Agreed. A paladin must hold himself or herself up straight, and be a paragon and an example to her people. He or she inspires the depressed, despairing masses to become something better and improve the world around them.
To kill enemies in their sleep is something that would tarnish that paladin forever if someone from the party, after the mission, say a blackmailing dirty rogue, goes around and spreads that rumor around...
"Pay up, Shiny Helmet! otherwise you'll have to explain those orphans why it's ok to walk around at night and offing people in their sleep!"
PS: yeah... this beard is starting to itch.... [cast alter avatar...]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like to take a different view towards good and evil.
There are situations, as written here, where killing people in their sleep is expedient, or simply good tactics;where assassination is an effective means of ending a threat; where mutilating and defiling the bodies of the dead to hide a killing is effective in escaping punishment.
No arguments from me on why the party felt those were good tactics and necessary steps. I would likely do the same or something similar in that situation. (I don't play Paladins)
However, must we really insist that because an otherwise horrendous act is tactically sound, expedient, or smart; that those conditions make it something that is not evil? Does not every villain whom parties struggle against have similar reasons for the necessity of their own "evil" actions? When we resort to lying, cheating, stealing and killing for a "good" cause, are we not also the villains?
The Paladin accepted a mission to assassinate, participated in deception to gain access to the compound, then killed his enemies in a way that presented the least threat to him. Then the Paladin participated in mutilating the bodies of the dead to avoid punishment for the killings. Then, presumably, the Paladin participated in the actual assassination. Replace the word Paladin with "Rogue" or "the Villain" and it sounds exactly what the bad guys would do.
This was not an honest mission with chivalrous goals, it was a clandestine murder. I thought that of all classes, the Paladin is the one that is not supposed to stoop to doing things "that way". That's the purview of the Rogues, Assassins, Shadowdancers, Arcane Tricksters and the like.
Eh, to me it's just "Greater good" so don't see why a paladin couldn't do it.
Are paladins not allowed to use Stealth in your games? Are they not permitted to ambush the personnel of a superior enemy force?
Are paladins not allowed to use Stealth in your games? Are they not permitted to ambush the personnel of a superior enemy force?
I once played with a GM who thought, and I swear this is true, using stealth to set up ambushes would make a Paladin fall, because it was the same as lying to the enemy about where you actually were.
Same guy who threw a hissy and left because I wouldn't let him Rend multiple time a round with his Eidolon, so he was f*&&ed up in multiple ways.
Mmm. Interesing viewpoints, even the ones I don't agree with.
I still view this as base murder. But moreover, I have a problem with RD bringing in new information to describe the situation the party was in every few days. While I do understand one aspect was a separate adventure in another part of the same dungeon, knowing the full story in advance would help a great deal. Were the dwarves the command staff? Keeping the humans prisoner? Or vice versa?
Are paladins not allowed to use Stealth in your games? Are they not permitted to ambush the personnel of a superior enemy force?
I'd hate to play a game where a DM was so absolute as to rule that any act of Stealth to be automatic grounds for falling. It's not the skill, but how you use it, right? A Paladin can fall because of a successful Diplomacy check, depending on what they mean to accomplish with it.
In regards to ambushes, well..first, I find it interesting that you included the qualifier "of a superior enemy force". Any time we need qualifiers like that should point to probably straying into morally uncomfortable territory.
Would the Paladin fall though? I don't think so, but there are many ways one can behave in an ambush against a superior force.
Is the ambush intended to put the party in a superior tactical position, where some reveal themselves, ready their actions, and demand surrender? That's pretty nice of the group, and it's the traditional good guy thing.
On the other hand, if the party kills a couple soldiers before the other side is even aware of the attack, and the Paladin snipers the enemy leader with a crossbow bolt from stealth to start the whole thing, I would add a notch towards falling. The latter may be a (potentially) more effective tactic, but it's not as morally sound as the former. There are, of course, many other ambush situations that are more morally ambiguous than the two examples I thought of.
I know the morals of the 21st century are different, but our modern viewpoint on how warfare is conducted should not be used to excuse the actions of a knight so chivalrous they get special powers.
|
|
In regards to ambushes, well..first, I find it interesting that you included the qualifier "of a superior enemy force". Any time we need qualifiers like that should point to probably straying into morally uncomfortable territory.
I wouldn't put that qualifier there at all. My palis don't slack off when they think the enemy is probably weaker. How would they know for sure anyway? Once they decide upon a foe, they're vicious bastards about it. I simply don't consider being honorable synonymous with being soft, pacifistic, or necessarily merciful.
For example - if they know someone is a member of a group of bandits who have attacked and killed travelers already - he'd kill every last one. If one didn't die in the fight itself - he'd pass judgment and go for a summary execution. (making it as quick and clean as possible) That's what would happen if they took the bandit to a court anyway. They as a paladin would give testimony - and since they're a paladin and therefore 100% trustworthy - the bandit would be executed. Except doing it that way gives the bandit the chance to escape and wastes the time of the paladin when he could be out helping more people.
Besides - they should use the least resources possible in every fight. After all - what if they need said resources in the next fight against a tougher foe?
|
|
On an unrelated note gents it looks like you'll be able to smoke the shire leaf legally in Canada very soon... the Liberal party just got elected by a landslide.......pipe tobacco? :P (and you're right - that's extremely unrelated)
yes, the peace pipe of tobacco +3
PaizoCon goes on worldwide tour! year 1 - Canada? :)
...I have a problem with RD bringing in new information to describe the situation the party was in every few days. While I do understand one aspect was a separate adventure in another part of the same dungeon, knowing the full story in advance would help a great deal. Were the dwarves the command staff? Keeping the humans prisoner? Or vice versa?
To be frank, I'm not entirely certain what the dark dwarves' positions were. The GM has a finite time frame to run the game, so some of the details get rushed. I also missed the first game of this scenario, so I may be lacking information that the other players are taking for granted. For example, I don't know how the party got their disguises or actually got inside the temple. By the time I joined up, we were trying to pretend sleep on pallets inside the temple.
What we do know is that the dark dwarves were in a position to bully the humans, as they beat our ranger when he was caught not sleeping. In the second game, the humans were specifically referred to as "cultists" and "acolytes." Through legitimate abilities or GM flub, we also know they--as an organization--are evil, something that is supported by the fine villagers who sent us there in the first place.
That's about the extent of my own knowledge.
For mercy to be given or refused, it needs to be asked first. Sleeping enemies cannot ask for mercy nor surrender.
Mercy can absolutely be given to someone who needs it without a request. Mercy can also be denied long before a request is ever made. Take for example the battle cry, "Give no quarter." It makes no sense, tactical or common, to wake someone up and give them a chance to ask for mercy when you have no intention of granting it anyway. At that point all you are doing is, 1. Causing them to feel unnecessary fear and 2. Allowing them an opportunity to wake their overwhelming number of friends.
Never thought I would see the day when Sarenrae replaced Torag or Ragathiel as preferred deity of the bloodthirsty paladin :-)
An interesting point. I keep hearing how showing mercy, allowing surrender, using the least amount of force necessary, and only killing as an absolute last resort in defense of ones self or others is the only, right, way to portray/play Good Heroes.
I absolutely agree that those are probably the highest and purest aspects of Good, and that is certainly one way to portray/play Good, but read some of the selections for followers of Torag or Ragathiel:
Paladins of Torag are dedicated to protecting not just the lives but the way of life for those under their charge, and hold the ways of their chosen people as holy, especially when they are the centuries-old works and traditions of an entire race. Their tenets include the following affirmations.
•My word is my bond. When I give my word formally, I defend my oath to my death. Traps lie in idle banter or thoughtless talk, and so I watch my tongue.
•I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright, but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others if need be.
•I respect the forge, and never sully it with half-hearted work. My creations reflect the depth of my faith, and I will not allow flaws save in direst need.
•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.
So if I go line by line over the things I bolded:
1. They hold their people and their people's ways and way of life as holy. They defend both. That means, there might be situations where they will go to battle with enemies who aren't even Evil, may even be Good, who somehow threaten their people's way of life.
2. Their code specifies they will do what is necessary to serve their people and protect their way of life. This may include misleading others. They might not outright lie, but IMO infiltrating an enemy using disguises and allowing the lies of other party members to pass as your truth would fall under this allowance of the code.
3. Against my people's enemies (which remember, might even be other N or G people who somehow threaten their way of life), I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. That is a very powerful statement. Strategy is long term planning, that means they will not allow enemies to surrender unless there is a long term plan to use them. This usually means exploiting that enemy for further information about unknown elements of your enemy. It is unlikely that a Paladin of Torag would have allowed the surrender of any of these acolytes even if they had been awoken. If he did, it would likely only be to find out more information about the leader of the group, and then summary execution would likely have taken place. Which by extension means, if you did wake them it would only be so that they could be fully aware while you stab, slash, bludgeon, and magic them to death.
3a. Now they must also act in a way that brings honor to Torag, so mutilating bodies is probably not okay (but again, we're not actually talking about a PF Paladin). However, ending a threat in a swift manner that doesn't cause undue suffering or fear is a debatable point.
Slay a proven wrongdoer in Ragathiel’s name. It is not enough for the sacrifice to have an evil heart or evil intentions; the sacrifice must have committed evil or unlawful deeds. Gain a +4 sacred bonus on saving throws against spells and effects cast by evil creatures.
This god's rituals/worship actually include human sacrifice and in return you get a sacred bonus to saving throws. It even calls it a sacrifice, so there's no argument about executions not qualifying as human sacrifice. This is a LG deity who encourages his LG Paladin worshipers to sacrifice wrongdoers (Who by the way don't have to be Evil. The only qualifier is that they must have committed an Evil or Unlawful deed). It is near impossible for the acolytes in the OPs scenario to be innocent of Evil deeds They are part of an Evil group and individually showed as Evil themselves, which is only the case if you have committed Evil acts (or in irrelevant cases like Outsider, mindless Undead, Infernal Healing).
I'm not saying that mercy, forgiveness, and restricted use of lethal force aren't Good qualities. I'm not saying that those qualities don't have merit, they absolutely do. But what these two deities, and their Paladins, prove is: Good doesn't have to be only always about hand shaking, finding the least violent path, and asking why we can't all just get along. There are other valid ways to portray/play Good. Especially non-Paladin Good characters. If a LG Paladin, worshiping a LG deity, is allowed to show those levels of intrigue and violence, I think any non-Paladin would be okay.
However, must we really insist that because an otherwise horrendous act is tactically sound, expedient, or smart; that those conditions make it something that is not evil?
What, other than societal norms, makes this horrendous?
They killed sleeping enemies in a swift and relatively painless way that mitigated the fear felt by those enemies.
They mutilated lifeless bodies. This is gruesome, and almost certainly not allowed by the PF Paladin code. However, I would argue the only thing that makes you think it's Evil is modern societal norms, traditions, and laws. They are based on ideas that a dead body holds some value beyond fertilizer. Those ideas led to laws against behavior that is unacceptable in our society. A behavior being unacceptable for life in society does not automatically make it Evil.
Honestly, I feel very similarly about killing an enemy in their sleep. I think the idea that it's Evil stems from a view of "fairness in battle," which turned into tradition, and eventually law. What makes waking someone up so you can kill them any more Good than killing them in their sleep? The only argument I've heard that isn't one of tradition and law is that the enemy you spare might be redeemed. That is, IMO, a Good act. But there are Paladin codes which don't allow for mercy or surrender, aren't they also LG?
Does not every villain whom parties struggle against have similar reasons for the necessity of their own "evil" actions? When we resort to lying, cheating, stealing and killing for a "good" cause, are we not also the villains?
What about Robin Hood, Qui-Gon Jinn, Bilbo Baggins, and The Fellowship of the Ring to name a few? All of them, at various times, did some or all of these things, for various reasons.
On the other hand, if the party kills a couple soldiers before the other side is even aware of the attack, and the Paladin snipers the enemy leader with a crossbow bolt from stealth to start the whole thing, I would add a notch towards falling. The latter may be a (potentially) more effective tactic, but it's not as morally sound as the former. There are, of course, many other ambush situations that are more morally ambiguous than the two examples I thought of.
You might say that it's restricted by the Paladin's code, but to say it is Evil, or even that it cannot be Good, is assuming a lot of things about morality and Alignment that the game does not. There are a lot of feats, items, and class archetypes that make very effective use of ambush and sniping tactics. Those are not restricted in alignment.
I know the morals of the 21st century are different, but our modern viewpoint on how warfare is conducted should not be used to excuse the actions of a knight so chivalrous they get special powers.
Some Paladins get their special powers from meting out merciless justice and vengeance. They are Good too.
@ Shadowlord
With all due respect you are missing the point.
In the situation given in the opening post the PCs have the enemy at their mercy and they chose to kill them rather than pursue other viable options. That they chose to kill them in their sleep is a small mercy compared to the great evil they have committed.
The OP and his group missed an opportunity for a memorable event in the game.
No. They missed your idea of what constitutes a memorable game.
as a result, the easy, base, dull, soulless murderhobo option was taken.
Really?
Ultimately it's the OP's game and if his group likes this play style, who am I to judge.
It's good to know you're not judging.
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.
Get away with? There are at least two LG deities who demand what several here have been calling murder. Especially from their Paladins.
But as for my games, yes they are. Most humanoids are assumed to be Neutral. Even your run of the mill bandits and pickpockets are probably Neutral. I don't always get the chance to divulge details to my players, but my NPCs typically have some level of back story and those who are Evil are Evil for a reason, not just because I want to "insert bad guy here."
Eh, to me it's just "Greater good" so don't see why a paladin couldn't do it.
Because the greater good is not a justification for evil.
Imagine there are five sick people who require organ transplants otherwise they will die before the week is out and you are the doctor caring for them. Do you believe it is morally right to kill a healthy person for their organs so that the other five might live? This is part of a famous moral dilemma and most people say an emphatic 'no'.
Committing evil in order to foster a greater good is a risky proposition. In my view good characters would not compromise themselves in that way.
|
|
Eh, to me it's just "Greater good" so don't see why a paladin couldn't do it.Because the greater good is not a justification for evil.
Imagine there are five sick people who require organ transplants otherwise they will die before the week is out and you are the doctor caring for them. Do you believe it is morally right to kill a healthy person for their organs so that the other five might live? This is part of a famous moral dilemma and most people say an emphatic 'no'.
Committing evil in order to foster a greater good is a risky proposition. In my view good characters would not compromise themselves in that way.
In theory I agree with you entirely. My good characters rarely if ever commit evil acts for 'the greater good' - and when they do they regret it and it shifts them a bit towards evil. (pali wouldn't at all) However -
In the situation given in the opening post the PCs have the enemy at their mercy and they chose to kill them rather than pursue other viable options. That they chose to kill them in their sleep is a small mercy compared to the great evil they have committed.
In this particular case - I disagree entirely. Killing is NOT inherently evil given the circumstances.
And even ignoring the chances that they might escape etc. - while the PCs that THESE enemies dead to rights - they DID NOT have the whole rest of the stronghold similarly dead to rights. These foes were part of a much larger force which they were whittling away at.
Eh, to me it's just "Greater good" so don't see why a paladin couldn't do it.Because the greater good is not a justification for evil.
Considering "killing an evil person who is a threat to many other individuals" is classed as a good action despite inflicting pain upon people. No. Greater good is something that does exist in PF. You are inflicting pain and killing a person in an act that is not self-defence, with the justification that you are preventing great evils from occurring. No one would say that killing the BBEG who is about to cause the apocalypse is an evil act innately, because it is the tiny evil of inflicting pain, with the greater good of protecting thousands and upon thousands of people. Without "greater good", PF does not function as a game of heroes battling evil.
It is important to note that despite this, good and evil is not subjective in Pathfinder without variant rules. So there are likely evil acts that cannot be counterbalanced by the resultant good.
Edit: I should also say that this doesn't mean the end justifies the means in the commonly used sense. Since the means still matters, it's more like.... end + means justifies the means.... sorta.
@ Shadowlord
With all due respect you are missing the point.
I'm going to need you to be more specific about what you think the point is and how you think I've missed it. The point I thought this thread was debating was killing enemies in their sleep, whether that's Evil, and whether it's acceptable for a Paladin.
My posts provided examples of LG deities and Paladins who's practices and codes do allow for merciless brutality and vengeance, as well as human sacrifice. This means the prevue of Good is far greater than the, have mercy, allow for surrender, and restrict use of lethal force that is being painted. Not that those things aren't also Good, maybe even a higher form of Good.
You have also asked me to consider Alignment arguments that are based on RL morality rather than PF rules. I did that as well.
In the situation given in the opening post the PCs have the enemy at their mercy and they chose to kill them rather than pursue other viable options.
What other viable option would you recommend?
That they chose to kill them in their sleep is a small mercy
Again, I would point out that it is not a requirement of all Good characters or even Paladins to extend mercy or accept surrender. That in mind, what would you prefer happened?
compared to the great evil they have committed.
According to your personal views on morality and how that interacts with your view of Alignment. I don't mean this to be insulting in the least. I appreciate your view of morality, and you made several points that make sense. Nevertheless, those are your views of what constitutes G, N, and E. Those views are not universal and the rules of the game are not necessarily as strict as your personal views.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its a testament to the level of murderhobo in this thread that there has been post upon post debating whether it is good to kill all the acolytes in their sleep or stupid to wake them up and fight fairly.
How about option 3 aka the good and smart option: Tie up all the sleeping acolytes. Not dead, not going to ambush you. Not evil, not stupid. No ones thought of it.
How about option 4: take all their stuff then wake them up and ask them to surrender, and knock the unarmed and unarmored opponents out with nonlethal damage if they disagree.
How about option 5: take all their stuff and then lock them into their barracks so they cant escape and come back to deal with them later.
All it takes is one to escape, or scream, or otherwise make a bunch of noise and wake everyone else up.
You assume you can tie up each and every acolyte silently, and somehow manage to disarm and strip them naked without ever waking a single one.
It's not that "nobody thought f it" it's that it's an incredibly bad idea nobody else thought was worth mentioning as an option..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its a testament to the level of murderhobo in this thread that there has been post upon post debating whether it is good to kill all the acolytes in their sleep or stupid to wake them up and fight fairly.
How about option 3 aka the good and smart option: Tie up all the sleeping acolytes. Not dead, not going to ambush you. Not evil, not stupid. No ones thought of it.
How about option 4: take all their stuff then wake them up and ask them to surrender, and knock the unarmed and unarmored opponents out with nonlethal damage if they disagree.
How about option 5: take all their stuff and then lock them into their barracks so they cant escape and come back to deal with them later.
All it takes is one to escape, or scream, or otherwise make a bunch of noise and wake everyone else up.
You assume you can tie up each and every acolyte silently, and somehow manage to disarm and strip them naked without ever waking a single one.
It's not that "nobody thought f it" it's that it's an incredibly bad idea nobody else thought was worth mentioning as an option..
So in your world, Acolytes sleep completely armed and armored, gripping their weapons tightly, and the silence spell doesnt exist? Or even simply clapping a hand over their mouths since there are 4 or more people holding him down?
I dont assume anything, in my Way of the Wicked campaign i personally snuck into a barracks of a lawful good fortress and used the silence spell to quietly kill every guard in the place and reanimate them. If you can kill all the acolytes silently with none of them screaming death throes, you can take the stuff out of their chests and tie them up just as quietly.
Silence takes 1 round to cast, and casting itself is NOT silent, and would awaken the acolytes. So you are now already assuming several things: They have a caster capable of casting Silence, their caster has Silence prepared, their caster has Silent Spell as a Feat known, and their caster applied Silent Spell to the spell that morning. That, or they have a Rod. You're also assuming that spell even exists in 5e.
Or, you're assuming it was already pre-cast and the group is moving through the area in an itty btty huddle and communicating by sign language, which is again a huge assumption (which was not, by all indications AT ALL THE CASE).
You're assuming additionally that the acolytes need weapons (they very well could be Monks or casters, and more likely are as members of an evil cult), and that they're all sleeping in separate rooms (which is a false assumption, since barracks were mentioned specifically). They get a Perception check to notice you every round, and it's not that hard to recognize a Paladin "sneaking" around in Full Plate even if you all four gang up on one of the unspecified number of guys in the room to stop him from calling out.
Killing them, meanwhile, requires a single full-round action and can be performed by each member of the group individually instead of, in your scenario, requiring all four per person. Much less chance of detection. You can put a hand over their mouth to stop them form yelling as you kill them as easily as doing it while tying them up (which technically speaking is impossible in either case, there are no rules for that).
Best case scenario for stealing their stuff: a Move action to pick up each individual item out of it. and likely several Move action to, you know, MOVE through the room and gather each thing (and I'd be assuming most of them would be wearing at least light armor to sleep). That takes you a MINIMUM of a minute's time, giving them ample opportunity to detect you and attack, unarmed or no.
|
|
And yes, any good character is required by their alignment to accept surrender or they are killing innocents, bar none. If the enemy has surrendered, they are from that point forward a noncombatant, and killing a noncombatant is evil.
False assumption. Killing an innocent is evil, but noncombatants aren't inherently innocents.
@ Shadowlord and others.
I am using my phone at the moment, I will provide a proper response when I am back on my computer.
Wait, isn't nonlethal more dangerous/lethal in pathfinder (compared to 3.5) as it now can carry over to lethal if you deal too much?
|
|
Noncombatants are innocent for the purpose of slaughtering them in combat, even in wars. You can take them to task for their evils outside of combat and mete appropriate justice, but you cannot continue to treat them as an enemy soldier when they no longer serve and immediate threat.And yes, any good character is required by their alignment to accept surrender or they are killing innocents, bar none. If the enemy has surrendered, they are from that point forward a noncombatant, and killing a noncombatant is evil.False assumption. Killing an innocent is evil, but noncombatants aren't inherently innocents.
Sure - you can call it that way. My pali doesn't kill them in combat - he executes them with a summary judgement. Same effect.
And no - they still aren't innocent. They're noncombatants - which has an effect under modern treaties - has nothing to do with innocence. We killed plenty of SS officers post WWII despite them surrendering to us. I don't think that virtually anyone seriously considers that to be evil.