|
EDIT: Ninja'ed by Rynjin. Well played Sir!
Well played indeed. You make a mockery of the sanctity of PALADINS! :)
Stop teasing the PALADIN! (that was one of my most common edicts as a DM back in 2E, to other players... stop teasing the paladin, stop picking on the paladin, stop seducing the paladin! LOL)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So that means Neutral actions are taboo somehow?I'm not claiming to be good. I'm claiming to be neutral.There was a freaggin' PALADIN IN THE GROUP!!!!...YES! only good actions should be considered by the said freaggin' PALADIN!
He's a PALADIN!
PALADIN!
:)
Guess all Paladins better make sure they eat their breakfast WITH HONOR or else they're in danger of falling in your games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the Paladin cannot dress himself/herself, chew his/her fingernails, eat, look at people, contemplate their navel, or a million other actions that have no Good/Evil consideration?
I reject your definition of a Paladin. That thing couldn't reasonably exist, even in DnD. Even the Archons would fall short of such morality if there weren't allowed to commit acts that had no moral impact such as farting, scratching an itch, noting that succubus is really sexy even if she was totally evil, or even posting on this forum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can be evil without committing any evil deeds.
Not in Pathfinder. Unless you are an Outsider or something. Humanoids, Native Outsiders, etc... are not that way. Their Alignment is a reflection of actions.
Your alignment is based entirely on your intentions, not your actions.
Not in Pathfinder.
If it were the other way then mind controlled players forced to kill
The actions weren't theirs, therefore they don't suffer the Alignment penalty. The creature controlling them performed the action.
wild animals would both be evil.
Pathfinder states that animals and creatures incapable of moral decisions can't be Evil, they are considered Neutral.
Its also why Drow are born evil even before committing a single evil act (assuming they werent twins).
Babies fall under, incapable of making moral decisions. Neutral in Pathfinder.
Its why red dragons hatch evil and wanting to eat virgins.
I believe Dragons are one of those elemental Evil/Good creatures like Outsiders. So yes, their Alignments dictate their actions.
Even if you dont want to believe this simple fact at face value, ask yourself why would Ragathiels devotion call out evil creatures that havent done any evil if they dont exist?
They can exist among Outsiders and such. Not the case with humanoids.
The way his devotion is written, you can sacrifice non-Evil wrongdoers as well. "Must have committed Evil or unlawful deeds."
Ultimately I think his obedience is to take vengeance on the Evil and the unlawful. So, why not just any old person with an evil heart or evil intentions?
Evil Heart: According to the "action" based alignment of humanoids, it's possible to have an evil heart (filled with //insert evil emotions and thoughts//) and not be Evil.
Evil Intentions: It's possible for a Good person to be overtaken by rage or whatever (temporary insanity) and be driven toward an Evil course of action. Perhaps a man killed his wife and he seeks to kill that man's entire family to make him pay. He may very well have "intent" and detect as Evil to a Paladin. But his true Alignment hasn't changed yet. He could still be talked down or handled another way.
NOTE: In the case of sleeping enemies, it is not possible, IMO, to have active intent. Intent meaning you have a plan, you are in some stage of enacting that plan, and intend to carry out X actions.
it's the most heroic meal of the day!Guess all Paladins better make sure they eat their breakfast WITH HONOR or else they're in danger of falling in your games.
What if they choose to skip that meal?
Even worse, honour is a Lawful thing not a good thing.
I believe Dragons are one of those elemental Evil/Good creatures like Outsiders. So yes, their Alignments dictate their actions.
Where are you getting this ridiculousness from?
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.
This is in conflict with Escalating the Situation rule of thumb.
If you are both unarmed, you escalate the situation to pull out a knife.Same deal, if he has a knife, guns are worse.
If the dude has a knife, you will never get in trouble if you kill him with your bare hands. Basically, never go more dangerous than your foe if you want to be safe from the law.
Yes, Castle Distrine can be argued as well (sometimes wins, but not always).
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.
Interesting idea, far too vague to be useful as a definition. It is also circular logic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Interesting idea, far too vague to be useful as a definition. It is also circular logic.
No kidding.
I sleep with the neutral guy's wife
Neutral guy wants to hit me
Conclusion: Sex is evil.
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.
I haven't seen a response to this. Most likely because nobody is claiming all killing is evil. I am happy to give my opinion.
Actions and consequences are important, intent not so much. The problem with intent is you never really know what the intent was, even after the fact. Back to the example: if the Paladin accidentally kills the cultist while attempting to render them unconscious he is still responsible, it is still evil and he still needs to atone for his crime. A case can be made that it is less evil than a deliberate killing, but there is no get out of gaol (jail) free card, the fact of the matter is that the Paladin caused the unnecessary death of the cultist. I am not a big fan of the Paladin falls principle, if I was GM the Paladin's gawd would steer them back towards the path of righteousness.
this thread reminds me why i either choose to go godless or be a gorumite
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.
Fair enough, thanks.
What I meant by missing the point is that the moral issue is whether to kill or not to kill, not how to kill.
I can agree with that.
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.
I do agree with you that avoiding killing IS the higher moral path. However, I do disagree that extinguishing Evil is an act of Evil in itself. That said, I acknowledge that it isn't necessarily Good either.
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.
Agreed.
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.
I agree with you that tactics should not dictate morality. However, my own views aren't primarily based on the tactical situation.
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.
That could work, and probably more in line with Good.
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.
That could work as well, and also more in line with Good. As a side note, I saw a designer comment that non-lethal CDG was possible... knockout blow. I'm not sure how exactly that would work mechanically since CDG is written for lethal damage.
To be clear, I don't think what they did was the best tactical choice.
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.
The only point I disagree on is that it's Evil. Then again, I tend to be a bit vengeful. When I think of a Real World evil that would translate to me into Game World Evil I think of things like Boko Haram, who have stolen hundreds of young girls for incredibly Evil purposes, and mass murder innocent people. I think of people who's indulge in appetites (to include the appetite for killing) that corrupt and destroy children and other innocent people.
For them, I very much prefer punishment and vengeance over redemption. I have no illusion that it's the higher moral path, but I don't think it's Evil either.
Evil can take other forms however, more likable forms. Consider John Creasy in Man on Fire. If he could coldly, methodically do the things he did in that movie, I'm sure it wasn't his first time. I'm certain that character did horrific things for his government and his greater good. That being the case, I would describe him as LE. He's one of my favorite movie characters ever. However, if a character like him existed in a PF game and the son of someone he killed 15 years ago took vengeance, I can't really say that makes the son Evil. It's just one violent man taking vengeance on another violent man. I feel that's best described as Neutral.
That said, I'm still mulling this over.
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.
Fair enough. I can agree with that actually. It leaves a lot of room for subjective moral debate though.
Even worse, honour is a Lawful thing not a good thing.
I believe Dragons are one of those elemental Evil/Good creatures like Outsiders. So yes, their Alignments dictate their actions.Where are you getting this ridiculousness from?
A combination of something JJ said and my inference based on that statement. Which is why I caveated with, "I believe."
His statement was about Outsiders being inherently Evil, their Alignments dictating their actions, while other creatures are the other way around. Their actions dictate their Alignment.
Now, Dragons are not Outsiders, however, as far as I know they are ALWAYS divided into Metallic (Good) and Chromatic (Evil), so it's possible that they follow the same intent as Outsiders. I could be wrong about that, if so baby red dragons are not Evil and baby gold dragons are not Good.
Even worse, honour is a Lawful thing not a good thing.
I believe Dragons are one of those elemental Evil/Good creatures like Outsiders. So yes, their Alignments dictate their actions.Where are you getting this ridiculousness from?A combination of something JJ said and my inference based on that statement. Which is why I caveated with, "I believe."
His statement was about Outsiders being inherently Evil, their Alignments dictating their actions, while other creatures are the other way around. Their actions dictate their Alignment.
Now, Dragons are not Outsiders, however, as far as I know they are ALWAYS divided into Metallic (Good) and Chromatic (Evil), so it's possible that they follow the same intent as Outsiders. I could be wrong about that, if so baby red dragons are not Evil and baby gold dragons are not Good.
you also have to remember not everyone plays in Ebberon where dragons can be of any alignment
@shadowlord
How can you post the text from the book of exalted deeds and still come to the same blindsided conclusions?
The Torag/Ragathiel thing brought me off topic a bit. To be clear, I am not actually arguing that slaughtering Evil enemies in their sleep is a Good act.
"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, (...)In fact, even
launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessar-
ily 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.
This is a good reference to say it's not Good to seek/destroy Evil without provocation. I have made similar statements myself if you read up thread. The same paragraph also says two Good aligned cultures can go to war against one another. It says this action is not Good. I agree. It does not, however, say any of those things are Evil. If they aren't Good that leaves Neutral and/or Evil. I lean toward Neutral.
(...)
The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence
cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncom-
batants (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 compara-
tively defenseless.
The context of that paragraph describes noncombatants differently than you are. I absolutely agree with this paragraph. However, sleeping combatants are still combatants.
Plain as day. Killing something for being evil is not acceptable. Discrimination against the evil without any evidence of evil deeds is not acceptable.
It is not a Good act. I don't see that it's necessarily Evil though.
Attacking noncombatants is not acceptable, and is explicitly evil.
As I said, I agree. However, you are arguing that noncombatant status extends to sleeping combatants. I do not agree on that point.
@ Shadowlord
Thanks for the reply it helps clarify my own thoughts on the matter.
It specifically says "these noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenseless"
Female orcs can kill just as much as males, and are often just as inclined to.
Sleeping opponents are not a threat and are relatively defensless just as much as imprisoned ones, which the BOED definitely says you cannot kill. Imprisoned enemies can escape, and therefore are a potential threat, but they are not an active threat so they are noncombatants.
Weirdly, noncombatants are cultural based it says.
So if you fight a Matriarch culture who thinks males are noncombatants you can only beat up females (like the drow).Being not an active threat doesn't make someone a noncombatant. It says entirely culture based.
Dragon colour and alignment makes no sense to me. It would be better if colour was independent of alignment, or dragons were born grey and change colour to match their alignment as they age.
A combination of something JJ said and my inference based on that statement. Which is why I caveated with, "I believe."His statement was about Outsiders being inherently Evil, their Alignments dictating their actions, while other creatures are the other way around. Their actions dictate their Alignment.
Now, Dragons are not Outsiders, however, as far as I know they are ALWAYS divided into Metallic (Good) and Chromatic (Evil), so it's possible that they follow the same intent as Outsiders. I could be wrong about that, if so baby red dragons are not Evil and baby gold dragons are not Good.
Thank god the rules go against that... I would be rather disappointed if that was actually a thing in the rules. I mean, I don't use alignment to begin with so it wouldn't affect my group but it'd still be disappointing.
"In the D&D universe, the fundamen-
tal answer is no, an evil act is an evil act
no matter what good result it may
achieve. A paladin who knowingly
commits an evil act in pursuit of any
end no matter how good still jeopard-
izes her paladinhood. Any exalted
character risks losing exalted feats or
other benefits of celestial favor if he com-
mits any act of evil for any reason. Whether
or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly
cannot make evil means any less evil." ...
Thanks for the quotes. I agree these are great descriptions of the highest virtues of good. They also highlight very aptly that Alignment is NOT based on intentions, rather the actions performed.
I still don't see that CDGing Evil is an Evil action. You've provided plenty of references for arguing it isn't Good, but I didn't really consider it Good to begin with.
Your alignment is based entirely on your intentions, not your actions.Not in Pathfinder.
Yes in Pathfinder
"A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil."
Not his actions, his moral and personal attitudes.
I am aware that RAW doesn't explicitly support what I said. My answer was based on PF designer statements. That said, designer statements are not RAW, however they are generally a good indication of RAI.
Even your quotes from BoED above highlight how a person can have good intentions/attitude/morals and even with the best of intentions commit Evil acts toward the greater good. This seems to fall more in line with the idea that Alignment isn't based on your reasons, just your actions.
Furthermore
" Mortals with an evil alignment, however, are different from these beings. In fact, having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed."
You can be evil and not a target of good justice. You can be evil and never actually do anything evil, for example you could be a coward who never has the chance to get away with any evil you want to do.
Or even:
"The extent of a character's evil alignment might be a lesser evil, like selfishness, greed, or extreme vanity."
Where are these quotes from? I don't recognize them and can't find them in the PRD.
And in reference to your "Drow babies are not evil because theyre babies" thing, i specifically mentioned Drow babies who are not twins, because little known fact from Drow of the Underdark: Drow twins fight to the death in the womb. Every time. Drow babies are vicious killers as much as Drow adults are.
I know, but that's D&D Drow, PF Drow are different.
And you continue to equate DnD terms with the real life versions. Justice is not Lawful, Justice is Good. There can be Just laws and Unjust laws. Bringing someone to justice is about punishing them for evil, not for chaos.
A Paladin is required to uphold just laws and oppose unjust laws, because he is Lawful Good, not Lawful Neutral.
Alright, I can agree with that.
There are still examples of LG Paladins who are not required to extend mercy or accept surrender. Are they not also Just and Good?
you also have to remember not everyone plays in Ebberon where dragons can be of any alignmentEven worse, honour is a Lawful thing not a good thing.
I believe Dragons are one of those elemental Evil/Good creatures like Outsiders. So yes, their Alignments dictate their actions.Where are you getting this ridiculousness from?A combination of something JJ said and my inference based on that statement. Which is why I caveated with, "I believe."
His statement was about Outsiders being inherently Evil, their Alignments dictating their actions, while other creatures are the other way around. Their actions dictate their Alignment.
Now, Dragons are not Outsiders, however, as far as I know they are ALWAYS divided into Metallic (Good) and Chromatic (Evil), so it's possible that they follow the same intent as Outsiders. I could be wrong about that, if so baby red dragons are not Evil and baby gold dragons are not Good.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. I don't play Ebberon. I've played mostly Faerun and now PF. In both of those Dragons are devided into Metallic (Good) and Chromatic (Evil). I am not aware of any instances where that's not the case.
It specifically says "these noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenseless"
It gives three classes of Orcs:
Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil
It makes no reference to warriors and barbarians who don't have a club in their hands at that exact moment.
Female orcs can kill just as much as males, and are often just as inclined to.
Maybe so, but in this example they are lumped together with children as noncombatants.
Sleeping opponents are not a threat and are relatively defensless just as much as imprisoned ones
I have to disagree, especially in situations like the OP, where the enemies in question are Monks. Also there are Fighter and Barbarian Archetypes who do not require weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So would you then consider killing a monk prisoner acceptable?
What I said was, I disagree that "Sleeping opponents are not a threat and are relatively defensless just as much as imprisoned ones." The sleeping opponents could wake up and be instantly armed. The imprisoned opponent, if you've done your job properly, cannot easily escape. They are different situations. Once you've taken a prisoner, you've accepted "ownership/responsibility" of that creature's life.
And yet the book of exalted deeds is clear: killing prisoners is at the least not good. Remember that a Paladin can fall for being too Neutral, not just for doing evil, and also for acting without honor.
I agree that it's not Good. I don't believe killing sleeping enemies is Good either. That doesn't automatically mean it's Evil. I've also already stated as much and I don't think this scenario was acceptable for PF Paladins (with possible exceptions based on deity). But we aren't talking about a Paladin who took prisoners and then executed them. The thing I was pointing out with my posts about Ragathiel and Torag is that they don't have to allow for prisoners. They don't have to extend mercy either.
So, if there's to be no mercy or acceptance of surrender, what other option is there than to kill your enemy?
As I said, Orc children are expected to be just as vicious as any other Orc in Orc culture. Lumping the women in with them still makes them dangerous as a group. Should a Lichs minions be considered noncombatants because they are not quite as much of a threat as the Lich? Or should noncombatants only be for those who are unable to effectively defend themselves?
Noncombatants typically refers to civilians who are not taking a direct part in hostilities. It does not typically mean, warriors who aren't ready yet.
Paizos stance on Drow is even more hardline than Wizards. Wizards have printed Drow as playable races and support a well known book series of a good one, as well as the possibility of half drow. Paizo made it clear that Drow are never intended to be playable in their core setting because Drow are irrevocably and horribly cruel and evil from birth. They made a whole setting about showing just how irredeemable they are.
In their primary setting yes. Not necessarily so in their basic rules for play. Drow and half-Drow are playable options in the basic rules outside of their Golarion setting.
All of the quotes are from the PFSRDs alignment page, taken from various parts of the first few paragraphs, found here. The specific ones youre asking about are from the first paragraph.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules
Thanks, I'll have to look at that later.
You misread the point of the BOED section about the greater good. The point of that section is the greater good is not a justification for evil methods, and that an exalted or paladin player risks losing his abilities if he uses evil for the greater good. The reasons are explained in the book and boil down to the characters purity being worth more to the cosmic balance than any good hes doing by sacrificing it, making it actually the greater evil in the long long term.
Even without that however, you are still admitting that in that particular situation evil was the better option than good, and was required to do what you wanted to do.
How is that different than saying: "If you perform an Evil act but have Good intentions it's still an Evil act?"
You said that mind control wouldnt count because the players actions were out of their control, but that wont matter if intent doesnt matter.
No. I said mind control wouldn't count because the actions belong to the creature in control. If you ran someone over in a car, who would get in trouble, you or the car? The car isn't responsible for it's actions, the driver is. Same with mind control.
All that matters is actions, and the mind controlled Paladin did kill those people.
No, the Paladin was a remote control car. The actions belong to the guy behind the remote.
Similarly, an evil character could go undercover for years as a good person perusing a nefarious plot, and should not be considered Lawful Good and able to wield Holy Avengers just because he hasn't murdered anyone in a long time and has given token donations to charities.
A spy who has done enough Evil to be Evil doesn't swing over to LG by donating a bit here and there. Alignment sections in PF talk about different actions carrying different weight. Basically, a bunch of little Good deeds are not equal to even one big Evil deed. So, if you are an Evil spy and you are doing a few Good deeds here and there, it's not going to shift your Alignment.
Notice that it says "A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act". Its not about him doing the evil act, as anyone can be duped into doing evil. Its about him knowing what hes doing is evil and doing it anyway. Thats intent. Thats why i think the Paladin of this thread should get an ominous dream message that what he did is wrong, but not lose his levels. He can reasonably say he didnt understand what he did was wrong, but once he knows he cant make that mistake again. Forgiveness is one of the Exalted Traits after all.
So, you think if someone commits an Evil act, without realizing it's an Evil act, it's not really an Evil act?
Otherwise, it's no different than if Alignment is based on actions. If a Paladin commits an act of Evil, it's still Evil, whether he realized it or not. However, if he didn't realize it at the time, he may not fall for that act. That doesn't change his guilt of the Evil act.
Note also that a later example describes a Paladin climbing a cliff to escape an enemy and accidentally causing a rockslide onto a hut, killing some peasants he knew where there. The example says that the Paladin should likely seek an atonement, because even doing something he knows could maybe lead to evil is not Paladin-like. In this case, climbing the slippery rock face could kill the peasants if he caused an accidental rockslide, and it was his duty to notice that and find a safer alternative, even if it meant facing the possibly insurmountable odds that was chasing him.
That could imply a number of things about the actions he took. It doesn't mean what he did was Evil, or even Neutral. It means his actions were irresponsible and started a chain reaction that lead to innocent deaths. The example you're siting doesn't say he fell right? A LG champion of Good and Justice should feel awful for causing the death of two innocent civilians.
The BOED does indeed talk about potentially dangerous prisoners
"Similarly, enemy spellcasters can be a threat even when
bound and gagged, and they must be treated with vigilance—
not brutality."I would assume this applies to monks as well. So in fact the correct response of the Paladin is to take the monks prisoner and volunteer to ensure they dont cause trouble, likely by standing guard wherever they are kept prisoner. The DM could then adjust the encounters for the night so that the Paladin had a chance to get into some hijinks that would make the night go easier for the rest of the party.
Sure, that's one path of higher morality. More appropriate for most Paladins. I still don't think the CDGs were necessarily Evil. How do you think this would differ for Paladins of Torag or Ragathiel, who are not required to show mercy or take prisoners (accept surrender)?
|
The crux of the problem, as I now see it, is that the two sides are taking the situation from a VERY different point of view.
From a game-view assessment, the killing is quite pragmatic and the crunch of the paladin falling is too ambiguous and does not explicitly say that this act is Evil. So those who would act this way as paladins would feel it quite unfair and arbitrary that the GM decides to make their paladin fall for this, as they feel it has no basis in the rules nor the setting as they see it.
But from a character point of view, what we are seeing here is behavior and actions to be expected from Black-Ops teams in the real world. And I, for one, do not feel that one can remain a Paladin while doing Black-Ops job. But that is based on how I feel a real person would feel in such a case. Not on how a fictional character in a story will.
I think this debate exemplifies that there are in this game two distinct axes that are usually seen as the same :
Axis 1 : Fluff vs Crunch : what is in the books.
Crunch is all the mechanics, easily identified as such. Fluff is the descriptive that gives fictional context or illustration to the crunch.
Axis 2 : Roles vs Rules : how a player see his character and interprets its actions and behaviors.
Rules is the game-view : I play a fictional character in a made-up world using the crunch of the rules. What are the consequences for my character's actions according to the rules ?
Roles is the character view : how would a real character react or feel if he was faced with the situation described ?
When we are in the Crunch x Rules sector, there is no problem. Same for the Fluff x Roles quadrant.
Along these axes, the paladin's code is in the Crunch x Roles sector : an assessment of PC's behavior that has real mechanical impact on the game. This is obviously problematic as exemplified by this thread (and all paladin threads). Actually any alignment topic is in this category. The paladin is the most contentious because the crunch is heavy with this specific topic.
I feel that traits are in the Fluff x Rules sector. And they are also a source of contention between players and GMs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't resurrect this! I know it's only been dead a week, but alignment debates don't ever resolve themselves conclusively. If you keep this alive, we'll have a zombie infestation on our hands.
Too late!
Muahahahahahaha...
|
|
I need help with this guys:
In my game we now have a similar situation, but the party defeated about 10 giants with nonlethal damage and the giants are now unconscious on the ground. The party is Chaotic Neutral and the mission is to clear out this giant fortress for a Chaotic Neutral king. The party is about to summon a bunch of wolves to have them finish the giants off while we move to other parts of the castle. They know it's probably not honourable, and perhaps evil, but they are Chaotic Neutral and they don't care much. Any problems?
I need help with this guys:
In my game we now have a similar situation, but the party defeated about 10 giants with nonlethal damage and the giants are now unconscious on the ground. The party is Chaotic Neutral and the mission is to clear out this giant fortress for a Chaotic Neutral king. The party is about to summon a bunch of wolves to have them finish the giants off while we move to other parts of the castle. They know it's probably not honourable, and perhaps evil, but they are Chaotic Neutral and they don't care much. Any problems?
I'm not sure I understand the issue. The party doesn't seem to care about it being an evil act (assuming it is one) so where does the issue lie? In any case, if it's just one evil act it shouldn't cause any issues.
If you are going to kill them anyways, why did you defeat them with nonlethal damage?
In any case, it sounds like the lawful execution of prisoners who broke the local laws.
Well, that depends on if they even have any rights, according to local laws.
True.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I need help with this guys:
In my game we now have a similar situation, but the party defeated about 10 giants with nonlethal damage and the giants are now unconscious on the ground. The party is Chaotic Neutral and the mission is to clear out this giant fortress for a Chaotic Neutral king. The party is about to summon a bunch of wolves to have them finish the giants off while we move to other parts of the castle. They know it's probably not honourable, and perhaps evil, but they are Chaotic Neutral and they don't care much. Any problems?
The summoning spell seems unnecessary. A captured giant would be worth at least 500gp to a slave trader. An inefficient use of resources.