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..
Quite right. The acolytes were all trained monks. There was nothing to disarm them of. There was nothing to tie them up with (not that ropes were likely to hold highly trained monks anyways).
To say nothing of them sounding an alarm with their shouts the moment they woke up and realized they were being threatened.
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..
Quite right. The acolytes were all trained monks. There was nothing to disarm them of. There was nothing to tie them up with (not that ropes were likely to hold highly trained monks anyways).
To say nothing of them sounding an alarm with their shouts the moment they woke up and realized they were being threatened.
You had sheets to tie them up with, you were in a barracks after all. You could easily form gags and ropes from them. You also had a monk on your team, plus other members to help him pin them one by one. And again, the silence spell is crucial for most undercover operations. Being unprepared is not an excuse to take the evil route.
Edit: re read the post and realized i misread something and that you never said you had a monk, however you still outnumbered them in a grapple and know they are at least fairly heavy sleepers due to your handling of the...
There were two of us in the room in the beginning (my abjurer and the ranger), then the druid and paladin showed up a little bit later, just as the fighting broke out.
I don't know for certain if we had sheets--GM never said as such. I assume there was some kind of covering though, as the GM didn't mind me creating illusions of levitating sheets.
The only thing that was really described to us by the GM for certain, were the pallets.
|
@Baval
In no way should anyone take an unnecessary risk like that. As was already mentioned, all it would take is for one to call out and awaken the rest, which would most likely chain react to getting reinforcements and now we have overwhelming numbers that the PC's need to try to survive.
No disrespect brother, but that is what I would call Lawful Stupid.
@Baval
In no way should anyone take an unnecessary risk like that. As was already mentioned, all it would take is for one to call out and awaken the rest, which would most likely chain react to getting reinforcements and now we have overwhelming numbers that the PC's need to try to survive.
No disrespect brother, but that is what I would call Lawful Stupid.
Not to mention we'd be stuck in a tiny room, intermixed with enemies, with countless more on their way, and no way out except the way we came in.
Would have resulted in certain death for sure.
|
|
@Baval
In no way should anyone take an unnecessary risk like that. As was already mentioned, all it would take is for one to call out and awaken the rest, which would most likely chain react to getting reinforcements and now we have overwhelming numbers that the PC's need to try to survive.
No disrespect brother, but that is what I would call Lawful Stupid.
Lawful Stupid is when you take unnecessary risks in the service of good. For example: "Let us wake up these acolytes and make sure they are ready before we fight them, then alert the rest of the monastery of our presence so they have time to prepare. It is the fair thing to do."
Lawful Good require taking any reasonable risk to maintain your goodness. Taking prisoners instead of casual murder is a reasonable risk. Otherwise how are you different from Lawful Neutral?
Another thing that could have been done was simply hiding the body and leaving the sleeping acolytes sleeping. Your goal was to kill their leader, not everyone. The monastery was already on alert due to the illusions, so they wouldn't put it on any higher alert by waking up and noticing something was strange.
The gnome was also a good bluffer. You could have gotten into an open fight and then lied and said the other acolytes were the traitors, getting the help of the guards and sneaking off in the melee.
I made a post last page dealing with some aspects of Time/Place/Intent/Actions, it might be worth checking out.
Taking risks is all a part of SOP as adventurers, but attempting what you think should have been the proper way of doing things given where the PC's were would be unnecessary risk taking.
They also were not trying to assassinate everyone there as far as I can tell. Also, taking prisoners generally works best when the side taking them is doing so from a position of strength.
The enemy being on alert due to illusions is not the same thing as fully mustering troops to repel invaders. They may have stepped up patrols for a while, but once somebody managed to call out for help, that's it, now you have a problem. At the least, they would have had a running battle to escape, but I wouldn't bet on it being a zero casualty scenario.
|
|
Thinning an enemies ranks is not casual murder. They were not five minutes until the apocalypse, nor in the middle of hell, but they were intent on saving others.
I have no idea how robust a legal system was in place in the game world, nor do I fully understand what level of dispersing justice Paladins have in that game world, but you can't just call for 'backup' until help arrives in order to imprison the bad guys, await their arraignment, form a jury of their peers and so on.
The level of alertness RD described did not sound like bells were ringing and all the enemy forces started mustering to conduct room by room clearing operations, if I'm mistaken I will concede that point then.
If you are just getting enemies out of the way, you are not taking prisoners, you are leaving possible bread crumbs for other forces to discover and further escalating their response.
Showing mercy is something heroes should strive for...when appropriate, and similar to actually taking prisoners, doing so from a position from strength. Going back to the idea of getting some of the baddies out of the way if they are incapacitated, they will regain consciousness at some point, so to avoid them causing any problems at that point, someone would need to post guard to control them. Not a good idea in their situation.
|
|
If they were slain, they could be covered up reasonably well to pass as still sleeping, for a limited amount of time, and I have to assume that time was a critical factor for the group.
Incapacitated, bound/gagged, they would eventually become a problem again so someone would need to keep them under control to make sure that didn't happen. Leaving them to their own devices in the hopes that plan works out is a bad idea, binds can be broken, gags removed and complications multiply. The dead don't do much of anything, and passing the corpses off as still sleeping would buy them more time than the risk of the other option. Just my personal opinion on it.
Again, you say murder, mentioning they had no chance to defend themselves or explain their actions and we come back to assuming that not a single one would have called out and the PC's would not have had a massive escalation on what should have been a precision strike.
I think we have to realize at this point that we will just see this differently and call it good ;)
Not to mention that dead men tell no tales. After all, if someone found them bound and gagged, it wouldn't take long for someone to get the bright idea of asking "Who did this to you?" At which point the group's cover is blown.
And again again again, the easiest way to deal with the situation is to trick the guards that the other acolytes are the traitors and you are the loyals. The acolytes get thrown in jail, the alarm goes down, and if youre really lucky you get brought to the leader to tell him about how you discovered this assassination plot. You keep not bothering to say anything about that line of thought.
It's a cult of Monks. You know, those guys with Wis as a high stat and Sense Motive as a class skill?
|
All it takes is one to escape, or scream, or otherwise make a bunch of noise and wake everyone else up.
Option 6: refocus to get highest initiative possible, and on the count of three, Great Cleave them all with nonlethal damage. Repeat again before they wake up on their turn (i.e. you do this twice before they even twitch). They should all be sleeping for hours now, and it's way less likely one of them will scream or escape than offing them one by one (i.e. count of three each PC kills one won't work for that 8 STR mage with a dagger, and won't work if there's more acolytes than PCs)
It appears in that case the GM ruled that he wasn't lying, at least from what the OP sounds like.
Regardless, fooling peons is a bit different from fooling anyone in charge, and all it take sis one botched roll regardless.
|
|
How much area does a Silence spell cover in 5th ED and how big were the barracks where they were sleeping?
Were their bunks/beds close enough to get the whole lot of them?
How many silence spells could have been used for that mission by the character, assuming it was an option? Heck, how many would realistically have been available to cover x number of contingencies?
Related: Assuming Silence wasn't an option, they should just brute force them into sleepy time or bind and gag faster than an outcry can go out?
The problem with this whole back and forth is lack of specifics. What should/could have been vs. what was is a part of the problem. How you or I might have done things different or similarly isn't the point of this, it's whether or not their actions up to that point were evil and apparently if the Paladin should have experienced a 'bonk! Lost your armor' moment.
Your last part I'm cool with, assuming all other variables worked out for them.
It wasn't just footsteps. We fooled the guards into thinking there was some sort of beast on the prowl. We sent them on a wild goose chase while we picked them off a little at a time, continuing to blame the beast.
It worked on most of the low-level guys. Our disguises didn't fool the leader for a moment though.
|
|
No, I think we both agree that immediately painting their actions evil is not the proper thing to do and we see eye to eye that the Paladin shouldn't suffer the 'Bonk!' hammer based on the OP.
It is a Paladin's duty to consider all of the alternatives before he acts, not to simply avoid unpleasantness because killing is distasteful.
A Paladin may be a Warrior of faith, virtue, honor, compassion, mercy and so forth, but a Warrior nonetheless.
@shadowlord
Actually, the rules of the game are necessarily strict on alignment. They are objective, not subjective, or "Detect Evil" would be "Detect Person Who Morally Disagrees With Me" and "Smite Good" would be "Smite Anyone I Agree With"
Objective means reasons, motive, justification, and legal authority don't come into effect at all when determining Good and Evil. It means if something is an Evil act, it's an Evil act for everyone all the time no matter what the circumstances. It means if an executioner can kill an Evil creature, after a fair trial, without being Evil, the PC can kill them without being Evil too. The fair trial is about Law vs Chaos.
Objective alignment means if a Paladin of Torag can be merciless and refuse surrender without being Evil, so can anyone else.
And yes, any good character is required by their alignment to accept surrender or they are killing innocents, bar none.
Well LG Torag and LG Ragathiel disagree with you.
So does the word innocent. Just because someone put down their weapon and surrendered doesn't make them innocent, in any sense of the word. Certainly not in the context that the Alignment rules and Paladin code are referring to.
If the enemy has surrendered, they are from that point forward a noncombatant, and killing a noncombatant is evil.
The thing about an objective system is, if it's Evil for one person, it's Evil for everyone, regardless of law, reasons, justifications, or excuses. SO, if killing an enemy noncombatant is Evil for the PC, it is also Evil for the executioner after a fair trial. It is also Evil for the Paladin of Ragathiel.
Likewise, if it is NOT Evil for the executioner or the Paladin of Ragathiel, it must also NOT be Evil for the PC.
Even the word murder is highly subjective.
I listed quite a few viable alternatives in my last post.
Yes you did. But that doesn't make eliminating Evil enemies Evil. Torag specifically states his Paladins will not allow their enemies to surrender nor will they show mercy. Ragathiel asks for the daily human sacrifice of wrongdoers. They are both LG, they both have Paladins. Their code directly disagrees with what you are saying.
The code of Torag certainly muddies things,
Not for me.
but if you allow subjective morality like that you throw the whole game out of whack.
What's subjective is saying killing this way is okay, but killing that way is not. Either way killing is done. And if they are taken prisoner, tried, and executed, it's still killing. In fact it's once again killing a helpless noncombatant. The only difference is a legal proceeding which has no bearing on whether killing that creature is Good or Evil.
Youre using real life subjective morality and a strawman version of objective morality to try and prove your point. Ragathiel specifically says the person "must not just have an evil heart, he must have actively commited evil deeds you are bringing him to justice for". The acolytes had not.
If they hadn't committed evil deeds, they wouldn't be evil.
Torag says "you show no mercy to enemies of our people". The acolytes were not.
They were literally sent there with the sole mission of killing at least one of them. I'd say that make sthem an enemy.
The universal constant is "killing a target unable to defend itself is bad"
Based on what?
Quoting an outdated 3.5 splatbook doesn't count.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.@ Shadowlord
With all due respect you are missing the point.
I did not intend that comment as a critique on your skills of comprehension, which by the way I rate very highly based on how well you write. What I meant by missing the point is that the moral issue is whether to kill or not to kill, not how to kill. So whilst it is preferable not to inflict undue pain the decision to kill the cultists in their sleep, and at least grant that small mercy, pales into insignificance against the crime of murder. I call it murder deliberately because I believe this killing is not justifiable. Obviously you hold a different opinion. If on the other hand killing was the moral choice, then obviously I would agree that it is better to kill in as humane a way as possible.
There is a lot of discussion on tactics which is clouding the moral issue. Since you asked the question I believe there are two tactical options which are better than killing them in their sleep and mutilating the bodies to make it look like an animal attack.
1) Leave the cultists sleeping soundly and retreat out of the fortress to get reinforcements and re-evaluate. If the PCs are genuinely outmatched then that is by far the most sensible strategy. They can go back rethink the plan with the new information that they now have about the layout, number and type of enemies etc.
2) Knock the cultists out cold and leave them in their beds. If the PCs are able to silently kill the four cultists then it is reasonable they can knock them out silently as well. This option is less likely to raise the alarm in the short term. A Duergar who looks into the room in passing will just see what appears to be four sleeping cultists, which is exactly what they expect to see so the alarm will not be raised. Killing them all and then making it look like an animal attack will cause the alarm to be raised and everyone to be woken up and on alert.
These options obviously have pros and cons and the option of killing the cultists may be a superior tactical option in some circumstances. But really that is beside the point. The question asked in the opening post is: "is it evil?". This is a moral question and tactics are not relevant to the discussion. As a moral question the justification for killing has not been made, not by a long shot.
To respond to another point that you made: I find that quoting the rules on alignment is not very useful as it is obvious to me that the rules were only ever intended to be a guide and were never intended to be a comprehensive list of what is and is not permissible for each alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is it specifically called out, exactly? People with actively evil intent might detect as evil, but they're also not actually evil. So why would someone with zero intent, just idle thoughts be evil?
None of those things you mentioned (save the Devils, since technically speaking they HAVE committed evil...they're formed from souls of evil people) are necessarily true.
You're not evil unless you DO evil, whether that be "petty" evil (thievery, swindling, bettering yourself at the expense of others through politics, etc.) or "greater" evil (murder, torture, kidnapping, arson, etc.).
That is pretty consistent across all D&D derivatives, as I recall.
IMO
Killing a target when their asleep has 2 outcomes as either a Neutral act or an Evil act.
Firstly addressing attacking a sleeping sentient living target (of any alignment) is an evil act. Attacking a helpless and or defenseless creature is evil. The difference between attacking a target who is alert and a target who is sleeping is the same difference between defending yourself (even if you instigated a fight) with an armed target and murdering a helpless victim. At this stage its just evil.
This said there are a few exceptions which makes this evil act neutral, by inserting the "necessity" for killing a helpless target. The obvious argument is that if the creature is evil and you kill them in their sleep, is it still evil? the answer imo is yes. Because at this level it is not "necessary" to deprive them of the ability to defend themselves to stop the evil of the person/creature. An example of this would be killing a few goblins in their bed as a level 10 adventurer. *Note also the group would have to know without a shadow of a doubt the creature is evil.
If the enemy raises a valid threat to the success of your mission to prevent evil, then the "good" you do by performing this evil act would turn it into a neutral act. An example of this would be killing a gargantuan dragon while it slept, this would save lives and the battle would be too dangerous to be done directly. Thus there is a genuine necessity to killing the creature while it slept. (or at least attempting to).
Does this mean you should wake up the creature and kill it then? the answer is no because they obviously might alert more enemies or disrupt your mission/quest. You can deal non lethal damage in a coup de grace. RAW there is no rule that states either a crit or a coup de grace must be lethal damage. However if they fail their fort save they will still die, but that's the fault of the gods. You at least "tried" to not kill a helpless creature.
This also does not apply to creatures who are not sentient, or living such as unawakened animals, constructs, oozes and the undead.
IMO
Killing a target when their asleep has 2 outcomes as either a Neutral act or an Evil act.
Firstly addressing attacking a sleeping sentient living target (of any alignment) is an evil act. Attacking a helpless and or defenseless creature is evil. The difference between attacking a target who is alert and a target who is sleeping is the same difference between defending yourself (even if you instigated a fight) with an armed target and murdering a helpless victim. At this stage its just evil.
I disagree your with premise that attacking a helpless/defenseless is evil. You have no argument that it is: you just seem to accept that. Once you realize that your whole argument washes away.
If the enemy raises a valid threat to the success of your mission to prevent evil, then the "good" you do by performing this evil act would turn it into a neutral act. An example of this would be killing a gargantuan dragon while it slept, this would save lives and the battle would be too dangerous to be done directly. Thus there is a genuine necessity to killing the creature while it slept. (or at least attempting to).Does this mean you should wake up the creature and kill it then? the answer is no because they obviously might alert more enemies or disrupt your mission/quest. You can deal non lethal damage in a coup de grace. RAW there is no rule that states either a crit or a coup de grace must be lethal damage. However if they fail their fort save they will still die, but that's the fault of the gods. You at least "tried" to not kill a helpless creature.
So "accidently murdering" a "helpless" someone is consistent to you as a neutral or good act?
|
|
Option 6: refocus to get highest initiative possible, and on the count of three, Great Cleave them all with nonlethal damage. Repeat again before they wake up on their turn (i.e. you do this twice before they even twitch). They should all be sleeping for hours now, and it's way less likely one of them will scream or escape than offing them one by one (i.e. count of three each PC kills one won't work for that 8 STR mage with a dagger, and won't work if there's more acolytes than PCs)All it takes is one to escape, or scream, or otherwise make a bunch of noise and wake everyone else up.
I'm guessing no one has STR builds anymore? LOL
I'm guessing no one has STR builds anymore? LOLOption 6: refocus to get highest initiative possible, and on the count of three, Great Cleave them all with nonlethal damage. Repeat again before they wake up on their turn (i.e. you do this twice before they even twitch). They should all be sleeping for hours now, and it's way less likely one of them will scream or escape than offing them one by one (i.e. count of three each PC kills one won't work for that 8 STR mage with a dagger, and won't work if there's more acolytes than PCs)All it takes is one to escape, or scream, or otherwise make a bunch of noise and wake everyone else up.
Somehow I forgot Cleave builds (incredibly niche, generally non-useful Feats) were the only Str build.
Ragathiel's obedience : "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."
You may notice that last bit "evil OR unlawful" in conjunction with "wrongdoers" (as opposed to people who want to do evil, rather than HAVE DONE evil), implying Rafathiel doesn't particularly care about ALIGNMENT (and makes no value judgment on who is or is not), merely wrongdoing.
A murderer is not necessarily evil, though he has committed an evil act. Yet, he would be a valid target.
The gist is "Slay a wrongdoer", alignment is irrelevant. Thoughts are irrelevant. Even INTENT (which makes you ping as evil though you aren't) is irrelevant.
Additionally, they must be proven as having done wrong (which means most importantly, evil people who've done evil things but those things haven't been PROVEN don't count).
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.
There's nothing "fair" about having a piece of steel jabbed through you. The fact that you had a chance to fight back doesn't make it more morally correct. It's the reasoning behind the jabbing that makes it correct or not. What's important to remember is that fairness sould be based on morality, not the other way around. Much like how a home invader with a knife can be shot, even if it's an unfair fight, sometimes a sense of fairness takes a backseat to pragmatism.
|
|
Much like how a home invader with a knife can be shot, even if it's an unfair fight, sometimes a sense of fairness takes a backseat to pragmatism.
Actually - any attacker with a knife can be shot. (and should be if he poses a threat at all)
A burglar who is unarmed and instantly reaches for the sky can be shot in the back as he runs away so long as he's still in your home. Castle Doctrine.
Much like how a home invader with a knife can be shot, even if it's an unfair fight, sometimes a sense of fairness takes a backseat to pragmatism.Actually - any attacker with a knife can be shot. (and should be if he poses a threat at all)
A burglar who is unarmed and instantly reaches for the sky can be shot in the back as he runs away so long as he's still in your home. Castle Doctrine.
Doesn't apply in every state, so you'd better brush up on the law if you move.
Youre using real life subjective morality and a strawman version of objective morality to try and prove your point. Ragathiel specifically says the person "must not just have an evil heart, he must have actively commited evil deeds you are bringing him to justice for". The acolytes had not. Morag says "you show no mercy to enemies of our people". The acolytes were not.
1. This has already been discussed earlier in the thread. You are placing the effect before the cause. Alignment is the effect of previously committed actions. Unless you are an Outsider or something in which case their inherent Alignment dictates their actions. However, the Alignments of humanoids are the result of their prior actions.
2. You have "bringing him to justice for" quoted as if it's part of the text, it's not:
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.
2a. You must sacrifice someone who has committed evil or unlawful acts. You don't have to be Evil or commit an Evil act to break the law. You could sacrifice a CN thief and satisfy what is written in this description. What you can't do is sacrifice a freshly raised zombie that hasn't eaten anyone yet. It's Evil, because it's inherently Evil, but it hasn't done anything Evil yet. That is not the case with humanoids, native outsiders, etc... their Alignments are a result of actions. So, if they are Evil, it's because they've committed Evil acts.
3. You don't have to be an enemy of the people. You can simply threaten the ways or way of life of the people. Also, it's not clear in the rules if this is strictly referring to "Torag's people."
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.
•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.
The Paladins hold the people under their charge and the way of life of "their chosen people" as holy. That being the case, maybe those acolytes were the enemy of the Paladin's people.
3a. Ultimately Torag and Rathiel are just examples used to demonstrate a point. The Paladin in question is a D&D 5E Paladin, but if that Paladin has taken the Vengeance Oath, then the ideas behind Torag and Ragathiel are similar to those of said Paladin.
Objective morality can include as many clauses as it wants, but those clauses are unchanging.
Sure, but who defines those clauses? What constitutes murder, self-defense, justifiable homicide, etc... are vastly different based on culture and time period. In the USA what those terms mean exactly can vary from state to state or even judge to judge.
You say it's murder, but it was not that long ago that wanted posters with the clause "Dead or Alive" were an accepted thing.
If you can produce the D&D or Pathfinder codification of what Objective Murder is I'd be happy to read it. Otherwise, who's definition of murder should I use? What culture had the most appropriate definition to apply in a medieval fantasy game?
An executioner can kill for justice and be good and an evil person can still be wrong for killing for pleasure.
Having the law on your side doesn't make the killing Good or Neutral, it just makes it Lawful.
I have read this argument about taking pleasure in a death quite a bit. Its a huge double standard for people who like to argue Objective Alignment. They like to say you can kill for the "greater good" and still be just as Evil as those you're killing.
If you can kill for a "greater good" and still be Evil. Then you can kill for "pleasure" and still be Good.
Perhaps the executioner enjoys ridding the world of one more piece of garbage. Can you think of a better reason to accept a job as an executioner?
Pleasure is a reason for killing that Alignment doesn't care about. The action is what carries Alignment consequences.
Killing is only objectively bad if the universal constant is "killing is bad", which it isnt.
I absolutely agree with you here. I think killing as a base act is Neutral unless some other modifier kicks it into the realm of Evil. I am not sure if killing can ever be kicked into the realm of Good. Very rarely if at all.
The universal constant is "killing a target unable to defend itself is bad"
Then why isn't CDG listed as an inherently Evil act? Nor has it been in any 3.0, 3.5, or PF FAQ or errata that I am aware of.
The criminal put to death had his chance to defend himself in trial rather than combat.
Law is Law it doesn't make a thing Evil or Good. Depending on where/when you are, you could legally be put to death for stealing bread to avoid starvation. You can legally get away with conning someone out of thousands via evangelism. That doesn't make stealing for survival inherently Evil or conning via evangelism inherently Good. The only thing that determines is legal vs illegal.
And in fact, though it isnt pathfinder or 5th edition material but is largely my guide to what constitutes a true good level within RPGs, the Book of Exalted Deeds, the killing of any helpess individual is bad, including prisoners, who must always be treated with the expectation that they can one day redeem themselves. You can swear them to an oath that if they break you will kill them, and in doing so take their fate out of your direct hands, but thats about it. So in that regard, even the executioner would be wrong to not allow the person the chance to change for the better no matter how heinous his previous crimes were. You can still kill in self defense, but it should be considered a regrettable occurrence and you should do everything in your ability to avoid it.
Really? Please quote the sections of BoED that supports these ideas. Some selections from that same book were quoted up thread and I read something entirely different:
Violence is a part of the D&D world, and not inherently evil in the context of that world. The deities of good equip their heroes not just to be meek and humble servants, but to be their fists and swords, their champions in a brutal war against the forces of evil. A paladin smiting a blackguard or a blue dragon is not committing an evil act: the cause of good expects and often demands that violence be brought to bear against its enemies.
That said, there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe. First, violence in the name of good must have just cause, which in the D&D world means primarily that it must be directed against evil. It is certainly possible for a good nation to declare war upon another good nation, but fighting in such a conflict is not a good act. In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation—the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm. A full-scale war would provoke the orcs to evil deeds and bring unnecessary suffering to both sides of the conflict. Similarly, revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence, although violence is an appropriate means of stopping further acts of evil (as opposed to paying back evil already committed).
The second consideration is that violence should have good intentions. Launching an incursion into orc territory is not a good act if the primary motivation is profit, whether that means clearing the treasure out of the ruins the orcs inhabit or claiming their land for its natural resources. Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done.
The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants (including children and the females of at least some races and cultures). Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenseless.
Finally, the means of violence must be as good as the intentions behind it. The use of evil spells, obviously, is not good even when the target is evil. Likewise, the use of torture or other practices that inflict undue suffering upon the victims goes beyond the pale of what can be considered good. Within these limits, violence in the name of good is an acceptable practice in the D&D universe.
SLAYER OF DOMIELAssassins, of course, are evil by their nature and the nature of what they do: committing murder for money is a completely evil act. However, sometimes the skill set of an assassin is required for more noble purposes. Claiming the power of the paragon archon Domiel, the slayers of Domiel are a disciplined, secretive order of stealthy spies and—when the need arises—assassins who serve the cause of law and good. Rather than relying entirely on stealth and poison, the slayers of Domiel use supernatural means to dispatch evil foes.
Misdirection, tricks, and manipulation are tools of the trade for most villains. With such tools, they can lead enemies into traps, both physical and otherwise. A well-told, well-placed lie can redirect a whole army, change the opinion of an entire city’s populace, or simply make an adventurer open the wrong door in a dungeon. Some liars are compulsive; that is, they have a psychological need to lie. Others delight in fooling people. If a villain can get a foe to believe a lie, he has shown himself (at least in his own mind) to be superior to that foe.
Intelligent villains often concentrate on gaining ranks in Bluff to facilitate their lies. Of course, being liars themselves alerts them to the fact that others probably lie just as much as they do. Thus, they often have a high Sense Motive modifier as well.
Lying is not necessarily an evil act, though it is a tool that can easily be used for evil ends. Lying is so easy to use for evil purposes that most knightly codes and the creeds of many good religions forbid it altogether.
MURDER
Killing is one of the most horrible acts that a creature can commit. Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like. The heroes who go into the green dragon’s woodland lair to slay it are not murderers. In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act. Even killing an evil creature for personal gain is not exactly evil (although it’s not a good act), because it still stops the creature’s predations on the innocent. Such a justification, however, works only for the slaying of creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil, such as chromatic dragons.
Evil beings delight in murder. It is the ultimate expression of their power and their willingness to commit any sort of heinous act. It shows that they are either powerful enough or detached enough to do anything they wish. To particularly evil creatures, especially those with very alien outlooks, murder is itself a desirable goal. Some such creatures hate life and despise all that lives. They relish either death or undeath and thus seek to quench life wherever possible. Such creatures are usually (but not always) undead themselves.
So, even if we accept that PF Alignment (although it's objective) takes into consideration the reasons, justifications, motives, pleasures, and guilt of a creature who's killing, you're arguments don't seem to entirely reflect what's written in those books. Additionally, it's stated by designers that Alignment doesn't take those things into consideration. An act of Evil is Evil no matter why you did it. An act of Good is Good no matter why you did it. An act of Neutrality is Neutral no matter why you did it.
There is a universal constant of what is "good" and what is "evil" in the context of RPGs, if there wasnt then detect and smite would not work. That simply cannot be denied, and if there is such a universal constant then there IS objective morality.
A lot of D&D material seems to indicate that reasons, justifications, etc... are a part of alignment. What's been quoted here still doesn't seem to entirely agree with what you're saying. In PF though, actions are actions and Alignment doesn't care why you commit them.
Edit: and also, the gods youre using as examples are Pathfinder gods, while this is a D&D game. The BOED would be more relevant i should think, and it says killing sleeping opponents is evil. In fact, it promotes "serving good" as being more moral than "destroying evil" if the two come into conflict, and cites an example in one picture of a paladin holding two succubi at sword point with the caption "The paladin must choose between honoring love and destroying evil"
Can you quote that and the context around it?
|
|
Somehow I forgot Cleave builds (incredibly niche, generally non-useful Feats) were the only Str build.Option 6: refocus to get highest initiative possible, and on the count of three, Great Cleave them all with nonlethal damage. Repeat again before they wake up on their turn (i.e. you do this twice before they even twitch). They should all be sleeping for hours now, and it's way less likely one of them will scream or escape than offing them one by one (i.e. count of three each PC kills one won't work for that 8 STR mage with a dagger, and won't work if there's more acolytes than PCs)
I'm guessing no one has STR builds anymore? LOL
Looks like a winning option if you're gonna go slayin' low level scum in their sleep though! ;)
Whirlwind Attack also works well for acolyte weeding.
Druids can trample them too (although I'm not sure if you can convey trample as nonlethal...)
Paladins can make their sword merciful via Divine Bond.
Wizards can cast sleep via cheap wand.
There's metamagic feats to convert spell damage to nonlethal.
There's also the option to leave the room quietly. If they're acolytes and they wake up later you can deal with 'em at that time. If you're out of their bloody room there's no real immediate threat. Why would they raise an alarm if they wake up 2 hours later and there's no adventurers there???
Doesn't apply in every state, so you'd better brush up on the law if you move.Much like how a home invader with a knife can be shot, even if it's an unfair fight, sometimes a sense of fairness takes a backseat to pragmatism.Actually - any attacker with a knife can be shot. (and should be if he poses a threat at all)
A burglar who is unarmed and instantly reaches for the sky can be shot in the back as he runs away so long as he's still in your home. Castle Doctrine.
It's not handled the same in every culture/country either. Our Australian poster can speak to that. The Australians I've talked to about it (a limited selection, so maybe not accurate) default to the least amount of force necessary to overpower a threat.
Also gun control is a real and effective thing there. Opinions I've heard tend to be that their government (police) can and will actually protect them. The attitude here seems to be more on the side of protecting yourself because no one else is going to do it.
This thread is still up? That's surprising!
I have an interesting question that I want to ask, partly because it amuses me to ask it and partly because I am interested in seeing how people respond to it.
To those who say that 'all killing in RPGs is evil', I want to ask you this: if the PCs opted the route spoken by several of you and merely attempted to knock the cultists out cold, but somehow went over nonlethal damage and killed them anyway, would that still be evil?
Before you answer, remember what objective morality is. If you do not know what it is, look at Shadowlord's posts above.
If intent means nothing and the act of taking a life is evil, then even doing so unintentionally is, itself, evil.
Therein lies the flaw in claiming that deeds are completely objective.
You know, I have a simple definition of an evil act. If you perform an act, and a NEUTRAL person looks at that act, and then immediately wants to punish you for committing that act, and in fact almost any neutral person you went to agreed to punish you for that, then you committed an evil act.
If you committed an act, and you showed it to a bunch of neutral people, and they all went "Okay I can understand why you did that and would have done so in your place" then its a neutral act.
So the question is if there are any Neutral people in the area who would approve of their actions. I can think of a few. The villagers who were being attacked by the evil people. I think they'd appreciate me killing as many of them as possible, and I don't think they'd blink at me mutilating their bodies in order to provide a method to kill even more of them.
I'm not claiming to be good. I'm claiming to be neutral. I would have killed all of those cultists in their sleep, mutilated their bodies as part of a ruse to fool the conscious cultists, and continued that ruse as long as possible in order to cut down the number of evil people I have to deal with until I can kill their Leader and go home mission Accomplished.
I don't think I'd lose much sleep over it either. I'd probably think of all the villagers my actions helped save if anything.
I'm not claiming to be good. I'm claiming to be neutral.There was a freaggin' PALADIN IN THE GROUP!!!!
So that means Neutral actions are taboo somehow?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not claiming to be good. I'm claiming to be neutral.There was a freaggin' PALADIN IN THE GROUP!!!!
Good for him. He committed a Neutral act. Why should it affect his alignment again?
EDIT: Ninja'ed by Rynjin. Well played Sir!
|
|
Doesn't apply in every state, so you'd better brush up on the law if you move.Much like how a home invader with a knife can be shot, even if it's an unfair fight, sometimes a sense of fairness takes a backseat to pragmatism.Actually - any attacker with a knife can be shot. (and should be if he poses a threat at all)
A burglar who is unarmed and instantly reaches for the sky can be shot in the back as he runs away so long as he's still in your home. Castle Doctrine.
True enough - though a large majority have some variation of it. (I believe 80%-90%.) Not that I plan to shoot anyone in the near future anyway. :P