|
Time to invoke Godwin's law:
Is killing Hitler in his sleep evil?
Of course it is. This shouldn't even be a question.
Presumably the background to the question is that the person being asked has an opporunity to kill Hitler before WWII or before the Holocaust or whatever, so the justification is that millions of lives will be saved? Still evil.
This is one of those times when there is no Good option, and you have to decide whether:
(a) it's less evil to personally murder one helpless individual than to take no action and allow millions to suffer, or;
(b) it's more evil to kill Hitler because you are only responsible for what you personally do, and not for what thousands of other people did to millions of victims.I'm pretty sure most people, including me, end up killing Hitler. It's an evil act I could live with given the alternative, but it would still an evil act, don't kid yourself otherwise.
Yeah, but then Stalin rises up and tries to take over the world instead and technology advances in different directions and it all gets weird, so in killing Hitler have you really made the world better????
Seriously, though I tend to believe that an act is evil or good or neutral regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. That said motivations and situational context play in to whether your actions effect a change on your alignment or not. People too often forget, committing one evil act does not make you evil. This isn't christianity where committing one sin makes you a sinner (at least that was how I was taught). Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are sliding scales and very few people sit at the extremes. Most people are going to be somewhere in the middle of whatever alignment they fall under. They may be Lawful Good but they may sit closer to the neutral side of Goodness or Lawfulness or both and still be Lawful Good. Neutrality itself is not an absolute either. It is a range on both scales.
I would tend to say that killing people in their sleep while evil and chaotic, would not, in the case you describe, cause people to fall from their alignments. If this is how your characters solve every problem then that would be a different story.
It's more a question of law vs. chaos than good vs. evil. Depending on your paladin's code, I could see there being an issue there. That said, destroying evil doesn't require you to be stupid.
Not really. Law vs Chaos is very misleading. Example: A monk must be lawful. If he preferred to sneak in and kill people in their sleep, and always did so when possible, he would still be lawful. He could even still be lawful good, depending on why his targets were targets
|
WarIt is not necessarily evil; it just depends on the circumstances. It is definitely not chivalrous.I don't think there are any circumstances where murdering someone in their sleep isn't evil.
Your opinion is that war makes atrocities that would normally be unacceptable into acceptable act? the end justifies the means? Pretty much every war tribunal, military court and international conventions disagree with you. There are rules on how to treat prisoners of war. I would further argue that the infiltration and kill mission described by the OP is not even considered war legally, and it's pretty much, legally, breaking, entering, and murder. It's a fantasy world that makes it ok for good to fight evil, no matter the reason, ok - let's buy that. But as a good paladin, he's the kind of guy that would not kill helpless foes, certainly not before they had a chance to defend themselves. Taken to its extreme "lawfulgoodness", a paladin would probably feel a whole lot more righteous if he stood in front of their gates and called them out for battle. But in situations where infiltration might prevent a ritual that will destroy the world, let's assume he's ok to walk inside and kill whatever comes at him that stands in his way to the boss... any detours to kill sleeping dudes who joined that outfit for say, good dental, medical, and the babes - is kinda pushing it. EVIL I say! EEEEEEEEEEEEvil!
War is not a warm blanket that makes everything ok. Look at the countless acts of horror done in WWII and various other genocides... not evil you say... bollllocks!
This isn't directed in anyone in particular, just an opinion.
Generally in my mind if you have to justify an action to your self or others it might be a bad action. or at least not a good one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your opinion is that war makes atrocities that would normally be unacceptable into acceptable act?
This literally happens all the time in war. Killing people is normally detestable, but during war time is often celebrated.
There are rules on how to treat prisoners of war.
Which doesn't apply here as they weren't prisoners.
I would further argue that the infiltration and kill mission described by the OP is not even considered war legally, and it's pretty much, legally, breaking, entering, and murder.
There is no way this can be considered breaking and entering. We were invited.
Assuming that it is war time, it can't be considered murder. Murder by its very definition is an unlawful killing. Killing someone during wartime is not illegal, and thus not murder. An lawful executioner likewise is a killer, but not a murderer.
It's a fantasy world that makes it ok for good to fight evil, no matter the reason, ok - let's buy that. But as a good paladin, he's the kind of guy that would not kill helpless foes, certainly not before they had a chance to defend themselves.
Using the logic that every foe must be given the chance to not only surrender, but also a chance to defend itself, falls wholly out of Lawful Good territory, and into Lawful Stupid territory.
Taken to its extreme "lawfulgoodness", a paladin would probably feel a whole lot more righteous if he stood in front of their gates and called them out for battle.
Which would very likely get himself and his allies killed, accomplishing no good whatsoever.
But in situations where infiltration might prevent a ritual that will destroy the world, let's assume he's ok to walk inside and kill whatever comes at him that stands in his way to the boss... any detours to kill sleeping dudes who joined that outfit for say, good dental, medical, and the babes - is kinda pushing it. EVIL I say! EEEEEEEEEEEEvil!
Seems to me you are being contrary for contrary's sake.
War is not a warm blanket that makes everything ok. Look at the countless acts of horror done in WWII and various other genocides... not evil you say... bollllocks!
No, war does not make anything and everything okay. However, it does make the sensible and strategic killing of potential enemy combatants before they can rally and kill you and your fellow solders...acceptable.
What are you supposed to do, tie them up and hope they don't escape and alert the others? Leaving a party member to watch them is not an option because you Never Split The Party, full stop. Wake up each of the acolytes and then have your Paladin duel them one-on-one? Or wait for them to do something evil to someone, then have to stop them after the fact when they're armed and ready? No matter what way you slice it, it's either do what that party did, or do something Lawful Stupid or Stupid Good.
Remove Alignment from the premises~
To the, "It's Evil" camp:
I see the opinions about killing someone in their sleep being Evil. But I see no rules that actually back it up. None. Not in the Alignment rules, not in the CDG rules, not in the Helpless rules, no where.
Also, why is it that you think CDGing an Evil NPC is an Evil act when the Master Spy, Ninja, and Slayer all get an ability that is essentially a standing CDG (Death Attack / Assassinate) and aren't Evil? These abilities depend on the fact that the victim doesn't know you're there and can't defend himself properly; not really different from sleeping. None of these classes are required to be Evil. None of them become Evil for using their class abilities.
I see the opinions about killing someone in their sleep being Evil. But I see no rules that actually back it up. None.That would be due to RD playing 5E and wanting to get more general opinions other than 'this rule says so'.
Yep. My first game too. As luck would have it, WotC is shutting down their official forums, along with their entire online community soon (the morons), so it doesn't make much sense for me to post over there. It also means we might be seeing an influx of new 5E refugees around here soon. :P
I see the opinions about killing someone in their sleep being Evil. But I see no rules that actually back it up. None.That would be due to RD playing 5E and wanting to get more general opinions other than 'this rule says so'.
Right, well I don't have any 5E books. But, surely the 5E books have sections that describe Alignment, and CDGs, and the Helpless condition.
I know this is the Advice section, but opinions are near useless without some basis in the rules of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your opinion is that war makes atrocities that would normally be unacceptable into acceptable act?This literally happens all the time in war. Killing people is normally detestable, but during war time is often celebrated.
Sure. Totally. That's why it's called the Battle of Nanking and was a glorious victory... Oh, wait. It's called the Rape of Nanking and it is remembered as the awful massacre it was.
I see the opinions about killing someone in their sleep being Evil. But I see no rules that actually back it up. None.That would be due to RD playing 5E and wanting to get more general opinions other than 'this rule says so'.Right, well I don't have any 5E books. But, surely the 5E books have sections that describe Alignment, and CDGs, and the Helpless condition.
I know this is the Advice section, but opinions are near useless without some basis in the rules of the game.
The Lawful Evil section of alignment (in PF) states that some characters of that alignment shy away from killing people in cold blood (though they will look the other way if it benefits them).
When the rules say that a bona-fide Evil character isn't willing to do something (because they know it's unethical), I think it's safe to say that it qualifies as an Evil act.
I don't think the rules needed to include a sentence about killing people in their sleep is Evil because they didn't feel the need to specify that killing someone in their sleep is killing them in cold blood.
But, surely the 5E books have sections that describe Alignment, and CDGs, and the Helpless condition.
Yes, no. no.
A typical creature in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations.
These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.
Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials, some cloud giants, and most gnomes are neutral good.
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.
Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and yugoloths are neutral evil.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.
Sure. Totally. That's why it's called the Battle of Nanking and was a glorious victory... Oh, wait. It's called the Rape of Nanking and it is remembered as the awful massacre it was.Your opinion is that war makes atrocities that would normally be unacceptable into acceptable act?This literally happens all the time in war. Killing people is normally detestable, but during war time is often celebrated.
Silly me, I forgot killing enemy soldiers and killing enemy civilians were the exact same thing. /s
Just a quick question on the "actions are good and evil regardless of context" front, look at these two scenarios and tell me if they are equivalent to you:
1.) A large group of heavily armed, well trained men break into an old man's house, killing his employees and finally killing him. Evil? Yes or no.
2.) A large group of Navy SEALs break into Osama Bin Laden's compound, killing his guards and finally killing him. Evil? Yes or no.
If you truly believe what you're saying, the answer to both should be the same.
WarIt is not necessarily evil; it just depends on the circumstances. It is definitely not chivalrous.I don't think there are any circumstances where murdering someone in their sleep isn't evil.Your opinion is that war makes atrocities that would normally be unacceptable into acceptable act? the end justifies the means? Pretty much every war tribunal, military court and international conventions disagree with you. There are rules on how to treat prisoners of war. I would further argue that the infiltration and kill mission described by the OP is not even considered war legally, and it's pretty much, legally, breaking, entering, and murder. It's a fantasy world that makes it ok for good to fight evil, no matter the reason, ok - let's buy that. But as a good paladin, he's the kind of guy that would not kill helpless foes, certainly not before they had a chance to defend themselves. Taken to its extreme "lawfulgoodness", a paladin would probably feel a whole lot more righteous if he stood in front of their gates and called them out for battle. But in situations where infiltration might prevent a ritual that will destroy the world, let's assume he's ok to walk inside and kill whatever comes at him that stands in his way to the boss... any detours to kill sleeping dudes who joined that outfit for say, good dental, medical, and the babes - is kinda pushing it. EVIL I say! EEEEEEEEEEEEvil!
War is not a warm blanket that makes everything ok. Look at the countless acts of horror done in WWII and various other genocides... not evil you say... bollllocks!
No - my point is that in a war, you don't wake your lawful combatant enemies up before you bomb them. No war tribunal, military court, or international convention would say that you can't attack a military target just because people there might not be ready to fight.
Your opinion is that war makes atrocities that would normally be unacceptable into acceptable act?This literally happens all the time in war. Killing people is normally detestable, but during war time is often celebrated.
Sure. Totally. That's why it's called the Battle of Nanking and was a glorious victory... Oh, wait. It's called the Rape of Nanking and it is remembered as the awful massacre it was.
Either you don't understand what's going on in this fictional scenario or you don't understand what happened in that real one.
In this fictional scenario, declared combatants are being killed in their sleep. In Nanking, the Japanese soldiers engaged in the willful slaughter and rape of non-combatants.
There is literally no convention, war crimes tribunal, law of war, or whatnot that requires you to wait for your lawful combatant enemies to be awake, alert, and ready for battle before you kill them.
The Lawful Evil section of alignment (in PF) states that some characters of that alignment shy away from killing people in cold blood (though they will look the other way if it benefits them).
When the rules say that a bona-fide Evil character isn't willing to do something (because they know it's unethical), I think it's safe to say that it qualifies as an Evil act.
I don't think the rules needed to include a sentence about killing people in their sleep is Evil because they didn't feel the need to specify that killing someone in their sleep is killing them in cold blood.
When a Lawful Evil character is not likely to take an act then it's either not lawful or not evil. In this case, it's a chaotic act.
The rules don't include a sentence about killing people in their sleep being evil because there's an entire rule mechanic designed for this task that they expect their heroes to use.
|
Evil, not Evil, it seems subjective. In a game I'm playing, we came across several non-demon minions/guards of a Demon Lord (clearly identified by their tatoos and unholy symbols). They were each sleeping in different rooms, so we could deal with them one at a time without waking the others.
I'm Neutral Good, so my approach was (since we clearly outmatch the minion, who is sleeping, unarmored, and without weapons) to wake the minion up and offer surrender. They could surrender, plead for their life, explain to me that they were really an undercover agent for a good church, etc., etc., and I would roleplay it out and deal with the issues. Or they could attack me or attempt to harm me (or the others), in which case I would mercilessly and without remorse kill them. GM declared I was acting evil.
On the other hand, two of the other PCs got tired of my waking the minions up to let them decide their own fate, and decided they would just slaughter each sleeping minion without waking them up. The GM felt that was fine, and not evil.
So, Evil, not Evil, it seems subjective.
I think the people arguing that its evil are forgetting how alignment works. The reason your killing them is all that can be good or evil, not the method you use to do so. Intentions and motives are good or evil, not actions.
That said, killing someone in there sleep can be neither good OR evil. The reason your doing so is what determines that. Are you killing them because they've been eating children, or are you killing them on contract for reasons you don't even know? One is good and one is evil, though he act of killing them in their sleep would be the same
Captain Zoom, how did the minions not scream, waking up the others and bringing an army of reinforcements on your head?
WarIt is not necessarily evil; it just depends on the circumstances. It is definitely not chivalrous.I don't think there are any circumstances where murdering someone in their sleep isn't evil.The umbrella of War does not make evil acts non-evil. Killing during wartime isn't justified because it's wartime, it's justified because killing in self-defense or to save the life of another isn't an evil act.
Murdering someone -- as distinct from some other form of killing -- during wartime is just as evil as it would be in peacetime; but in war there is very often no "good" option. This is why we have terms like "necessary evil" and "lesser of two evils." If your only choice is which evil act to commit, that sucks for you, but it doesn't make the act you choose Good.
Time to invoke Godwin's law:
Is killing Hitler in his sleep evil?
Just as evil as killing him while awake (if not evil awake, it wasn't evil asleep).
|
|
Captain Zoom, how did the minions not scream, waking up the others and bringing an army of reinforcements on your head?
Each had their own separate sleeping quarters, the walls of the place were quite thick, and I don't think the sleeping quarters were necessarily abutting, so I guess the GM decided that whatever happened in each room wouldn't wake up someone sleeping in another room? In other words, it wasn't an issue for the GM.
And yes, it did factor into my decision to wake each one that the GM didn't feel the noise wouldn't cause a problem.
|
|
Not evil. Otherwise there wouldn't be slumber hex. That hex was meant to give free CDGs!
Oh - I'm a - the ends justify the means sort.
I don't think this situation is anywhere near the 'ends justify the means' such as Hobbes promoted. (I always remember - because Watterson made Calvin have the philosopher Hobbes's perspective, while Hobbes had had the philosopher Calvin's perspective - at least in very general terms.)
That's more of the classic scenario of - 'would you torture a criminal in order to save an innocent?' - that would be an evil act for good intentions. However - there's no way that the general act of killing can be evil in D&D terms (not going to debate real-world ethics) as the main purpose of adventurers is going out to kill bad guys.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil, not Evil, it seems subjective. In a game I'm playing, we came across several non-demon minions/guards of a Demon Lord (clearly identified by their tatoos and unholy symbols). They were each sleeping in different rooms, so we could deal with them one at a time without waking the others.
I'm Neutral Good, so my approach was (since we clearly outmatch the minion, who is sleeping, unarmored, and without weapons) to wake the minion up and offer surrender. They could surrender, plead for their life, explain to me that they were really an undercover agent for a good church, etc., etc., and I would roleplay it out and deal with the issues. Or they could attack me or attempt to harm me (or the others), in which case I would mercilessly and without remorse kill them. GM declared I was acting evil.
On the other hand, two of the other PCs got tired of my waking the minions up to let them decide their own fate, and decided they would just slaughter each sleeping minion without waking them up. The GM felt that was fine, and not evil.
So, Evil, not Evil, it seems subjective.
Your GM is clearly an idiot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not polite to say such things, DG, even if everyone else is thinking the same thing.
@ CLH: Merely stating facts; not evil. Neutral, sure. :)
@ RD: I will grant it wasn't polite. I wouldn't have called him an idiot to his...er, avatar...had he been the one posting.
The Lawful Evil section of alignment (in PF) states that some characters of that alignment shy away from killing people in cold blood (though they will look the other way if it benefits them).
When the rules say that a bona-fide Evil character isn't willing to do something (because they know it's unethical), I think it's safe to say that it qualifies as an Evil act.
I don't think the rules needed to include a sentence about killing people in their sleep is Evil because they didn't feel the need to specify that killing someone in their sleep is killing them in cold blood.
When a Lawful Evil character is not likely to take an act then it's either not lawful or not evil. In this case, it's a chaotic act.
The rules don't include a sentence about killing people in their sleep being evil because there's an entire rule mechanic designed for this task that they expect their heroes to use.
This actually supports my argument more than it hurts it.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Firstly, this isn't talking about LE villains as a whole, but some, who may have a specific taboo (such as from a personal code). Also, the fact that neither of the other Evil alignments mention this indicate that is has more to do with the L than the E. Which is exactly what I was saying, it's Chaotic, but not Evil.
It even says that the LE villain believes that these compunctions put them above other "unprincipled villains." What do you think that refers to? Read the very next entry for NE.
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
So, the LE villain has a personal code (lawful) and believes that it makes him better than other forms of Evil. The NE villain holds no regard for such things and has no illusion that following such laws or codes would make him any better or more noble.
CDG is in the combat rules right behind Cover, Concealment, and Flanking. It's just another tactic. No more Evil than ganging up on a single opponent with your entire party (Flanking).
|
|
As luck would have it, WotC is shutting down their official forums, along with their entire online community soon (the morons),
The things that company do... I'll never understand. I'm a 4E Spellplague refugee that had played in the Realms until they carpet bombed the setting and catapulted it in the future. Now they're doing it again? Are they 'trying' to make Paizo bigger?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As luck would have it, WotC is shutting down their official forums, along with their entire online community soon (the morons),The things that company do... I'll never understand. I'm a 4E Spellplague refugee that had played in the Realms until they carpet bombed the setting and catapulted it in the future. Now they're doing it again? Are they 'trying' to make Paizo bigger?
Their official memo said something to the effect of "everyone has Facebook and other online resources with which to communicate now, so there's really no need for a centralized official communication hub anymore."
I'm guessing they are trying to save money by not having to maintain expensive forum servers or something, though I just don't see how it's going to do anything but hurt their business.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
War is not a warm blanket that makes everything ok. Look at the countless acts of horror done in WWII and various other genocides... not evil you say... bollllocks!No - my point is that in a war, you don't wake your lawful combatant enemies up before you bomb them. No war tribunal, military court, or international convention would say that you can't attack a military target just because people there might not be ready to fight.
Well, some people might disagree with you there... of course waking up the enemy is stupid on all counts, but killing them in their sleep seems a tad more controversial... It's a very complicated issue when you take evil vs. good out of it, and you try to analyze this based on the legality of it. Here's some snippets from an interesting paper on the subject, with arguments on both sides: (bold emphasis mine)
"The standard principles governing self-defense require that four conditions be fulfilled before force is justified. First, force may only be used against an Unjustified Aggressor. Second, the force used must be necessary. Third, the force used must be proportionate to the harm being avoided. And fourth, the threat must be imminent. "
"The idea of self-defense law is that one may not resort to force until the very last possible moment; preemptive or anticipatory use of force is ruled out. Notoriously, in recent years this rule has been used against women who kill their husbands, claiming it is a preventive measure because of a history of repeated beatings they have suffered in the past. [In the most extreme cases, some women have killed their husbands while they slept or were unconscious. The issue is extremely controversial, but the general tendency has been to hold that such use of force is illegal, since an unconscious person cannot as a matter of definition pose an imminent threat. But even in cases where the husband was fully conscious, the imminence rule has been used against women who kill while the husband was unarmed or not presently engaged in an attack or even a threatened attack. The expectation of an attack later does not justify the use of force now; one must wait until one has no choice but to resort to force."
"Perhaps the clearest example of the problem, and the one on which we will focus here, is the sleeping soldier. Few would consider it illegitimate to target soldiers when they are in their camp or barracks and not presently attacking, and even when most of them are sleeping. Yet we have already said that the sleeping husband may not legitimately be attacked. But there are numerous other equally clear examples of non-imminent threats. Larry May for example uses the example of the naked soldier taking a bath, as told in Robert Graves’ memoir Goodbye to All That.[4] Graves spots a naked soldier taking a bath and refuses to shoot him, but gives his sniper rifle to another soldier to carry out the task. Whatever Graves’ moral misgivings (reminiscent of George Orwell’s failure to shoot a soldier whose pants were falling down), the issue for us is why would it be permissible to shoot such a soldier, who obviously poses no immediate threat to anyone.
This appears to leave us with a dilemma: either one cannot target enemy soldiers except when they are actually brandishing weapons and advancing, or else the Standard Account is wrong. We certainly do want to say that once an enemy soldier surrenders and lays down his weapon, or is otherwise rendered hors de combat, he no longer poses a threat and hence may not be targeted. However, most killing in war would not seem to satisfy the strict imminence standard: shelling soldiers in their camp, shooting at fleeing soldiers; and this is not even to mention the use of strategic bombing against munitions factories and other such targets. Are we forced then back into the Realist position? Is killing in war not morally justified after all?"
"The imminence rule, I claim, is not a general moral restriction on the use of force. There is no moral principle that requires that one wait until the moment of imminence to defend oneself from an attack. If someone is wrongly planning to kill me, I am entitled to defend myself as necessary, even if it means acting preventively. To be sure, the longer I wait, the more I can be certain that defensive force is truly necessary. But morality does not in general require us to exercise saintly forbearance. The longer I wait, after all, the more I put myself in jeopardy, for it may quickly become too late to act to protect myself.
But why then does self-defense require that the threat be imminent, at least in the domestic context? The answer, I claim, is that this reflects a political rather than a moral restriction; it reflects a particular allocation of the authority to use force as between the state and the individual. Essential to the state is its monopoly on the use of force; it alone is authorized to inflict violence (through the power of arrest and punishment). When an individual feels threatened, he may not resort to violent self-help but must call on the state to protect him. But the one significant exception to this monopoly is the individual right of self-defense where there is an imminent threat. The reason for this exception is obvious: when the threat is imminent, there is no time or opportunity for the individual to call on the state to protect himself; it is either resort to self-help, or submit to the violent assault. As the state cannot reasonably require individuals to submit to being killed, it grants an exception allowing the use of deadly force, but only when the state is unable to protect the individual in time. "
"The situation in war is patently different from the domestic one, however. As Kilner recognizes, “soldiers have no recourse to a higher authority to defend them” (id. p. 31). More precisely, what Kilner should have said is that soldiers are the higher authority, the representatives of the state, on the battlefield. As such, they are not governed by the imminence restriction, which applies only to private violence not state violence. Indeed, on the battlefield it is arguable that the imminence rule does not even apply to private violence, as there is no effective monopoly of force in war. Thus a soldier or a unit can perhaps in some cases act in private self-defense free of the imminence rule. But in any case, acting in his capacity as a soldier he is clearly not bound by the restriction that the threat be imminent. It is thus morally and legally permissible to target even a sleeping soldier, for while that soldier does not constitute an imminent threat, he will likely be a threat tomorrow or the next day.
This argument should not be taken as suggesting that violence in war is essentially unlimited. The unjust attacker, proportionality, and necessity rules apply every bit as strictly in wartime as in peace. Necessity in particular is a crucial restriction on the resort to violence: if one can capture the sleeping soldier rather than kill him, one is morally obligated to do so (assuming it does not result in undue risk to the soldiers trying to capture him). One is of course morally obligated to disarm or disable rather than kill where reasonably possible as well. Indeed, the further a threat is from being imminent, the less likely it will be necessary to use force now, for there may well be alternative means of preventing the threat. Nonetheless, in some cases it will be necessary to use force even against sleeping soldiers. Neither law nor morality require that force be limited to imminent threats in wartime."
" This account of the imminence rule that I am defending is nonstandard and controversial; most commentators interpret imminence as an intrinsic element of self-defense rather than as a particular restriction on domestic self-defense law. "
I like the part where he says "But morality does not in general require us to exercise saintly forbearance." I immediately thought about the paladin, and how his code is just that, one of saintly forbearance. Certainly the Neutral aligned combatants would not 'be required to exercise saintly forbearance', but this becomes really debatable with Good aligned PCs, and certainly a very risky proposition for a full on paladin.
|
|
If the acolytes were just normal people who did their penances by flagellating and being healed through Infernal Healing, the result would be the same : Detect Evil would show them Evil, even if they were all Good.
Would it still be not-Evil then to slit their throat while they were sleeping and mutilate their bodies to disguise the true cause of death, all so you can more easily kill your real (and only) target ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People are quick to assume that the acolytes are people that could be handled without killing. This is a fantasy world. As a GM, I could just as easily make those guys 20th level death lords that if tied up and woken, teleport and then cast blasphemy killing the party.
Now if you were in the type of campaign where the GM didn't tailor the enemy levels to the PC levels and placed super villains everywhere, would it still be evil to kill those guys in their sleep?
Yes. It doesn't matter how badass they are when awake; asleep, they're helpless. You are murdering a helpless creature. As I've said upthread, it may well be smart to do so, and you may be in a situation where you feel you have no choice because if you don't take these guys out quickly and quietly there will be Very Bad Consequences.
In that situation, it sucks to be you, but you're going to commit an evil act. A thing being necessary doesn't make it Good. A thing being Evil doesn't make it avoidable or unforgiveable.
|
|
A quote from Inner Sea World Guide, p.151:
"A growing number of lower-ranking priests in the church fear that its leadership grows ever more blasphemous and heretical in this lust for war, for Sarenrae’s teachings preach tolerance and redemption. War is to be an act of final resort—not a preventative measure against real or imagined threats. A schism is building in Qadira’s most powerful church as a result, one that goes unnoticed by the government and the populace at large but could explode at the slightest triggering event."
|
|
A quote from Inner Sea World Guide, p.151:
"A growing number of lower-ranking priests in the church fear that its leadership grows ever more blasphemous and heretical in this lust for war, for Sarenrae’s teachings preach tolerance and redemption. War is to be an act of final resort—not a preventative measure against real or imagined threats. A schism is building in Qadira’s most powerful church as a result, one that goes unnoticed by the government and the populace at large but could explode at the slightest triggering event."
That doesn't actually prove your point at all. It's saying that war should be a final resort - I agree entirely.
However - since even for Sarenrae it IS an option - even if a rare one - it's obviously not inherently evil.
Wait, why does killing helpless evil make it an evil act?
Helpless doesn't make them innocent. Only Innocent slain is an evil act in the alignment description.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, why does killing helpless evil make it an evil act?
Helpless doesn't make them innocent. Only Innocent slain is an evil act in the alignment description.
Just because someone is Evil, doesn't mean they deserve death or that they're not innocent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In one of the last Tom Clancy books (this one only 90% ghost written), a special ops team killed some sleeping terrorists while searching a cave for bin Laudin (or whoever the thinly veiled version was), and a misguided liberal from the DOJ was going to prosecute them for War Crimes. If Tom Clancy (or his ghost writer) says that killing sleeping terrorists is good, who are we to argue?
[Mostly I posted this out of curiosity to see if anyone would go "ahhh, I agreed with Tom Clancy" or "oh no, I disagreed with Tom Clancy, I must have been wrong."]
Well, "we" would be citizens of the modern nations who get vote on these exact types of rules, especially when these acts are done in our name. We are the very people who are supposed to argue and decide what we think is right in this circumstance. We don't usually use terms like "evil" in these modern discussions: we use terms like "legal" and "illegal" and "right" and "wrong". In modern times, you have to do a lot of really bad things to rise to the level of "evil". And you can do a lot of illegal things without being evil (e.g., civil disobedience), and you can be evil without ever violating the law (e.g., pharmaceutical patent vultures).
In the game, "evil" is often considered a state of being or an inherent attribute: creatures "are evil" rather than "do evil things". And everyone's definition of evil is different. That gets really tricky.
But in the game, if the entire scenario was a assassination mission, this entire discussion probably needed to happen when the mission was assigned and accepted. If the paladin was sent on a mission that inherently included evil act, and the GM didn't warn the player before she accepted the mission, that's on the GM.
(My paladin actually makes a point of explicitly getting the scope, intention, and acceptable deviations of a mission before accepting it.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, why does killing helpless evil make it an evil act?
Helpless doesn't make them innocent. Only Innocent slain is an evil act in the alignment description.
At least for the situation and details provided in the original post it would seem to me to be an evil act.
The only information provided about the Order of the Stone Hand is that they are a rival of the Order of the Sun Soul; the mission for the party was to assassinate the rival leader.
Only upon infiltrating this rival organization did the parties resident paladin detect evil alignments upon its members.
Perhaps more relevant information would be helpful; like what exactly did this Order of the Stone Hand was responsible for other than being evil aligned and a rival?
While the Order is evil aligned it doesn't mean they deserve death, there are plenty of evil Pathfinders, Hellknights, etc as example in Golarion that don't automatically deserve death.
Without more information it could be seen as an evil act to infiltrate an Order under guise of joining them and killing its members in their sleep.
Edit: I'll also add that this doesn't mean i would condone a alignment shift for anyone; unless this was a common occurrence and repeated. A group of people who consistently act like this could be seen as an evil group.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, why does killing helpless evil make it an evil act?
Helpless doesn't make them innocent. Only Innocent slain is an evil act in the alignment description.
My answer will get into things that do not, and for practical reasons should not, take place in most games.
Does your character have 100% certain knowledge that everyone you're about to kill has committed evil acts which are sufficiently heinous to warrant the death penalty? Maybe one guy just started his job yesterday, hasn't done anything so far, and isn't evil. He's neutral and a bit uncomfortable with parts of the job description but he needs the money. Maybe everyone in the room is evil, spends every waking hour thinking evil thoughts and making evil plans, but again they're new at the job and haven't carried out any plans yet. It's not Good to kill people for thinking bad thoughts. Maybe they're all into petty evil, but nothing that warrants killing them.
It would bog down the typical game way, way too much to have to capture all the bad guys, turn them over to local authorities for trial, etc. and I don't suggest doing all that. It's a fantasy adventure game, not a courtroom procedural. In any case that's more of a Law/Chaos question than one of Good/Evil.
Still, here's a guy asleep in his bed. You don't know him. You've never exchanged two words. Your detect evil spell makes an 18-second assessment of the room and tells you to what degree "X" number of creatures in the room have the potential for evil. It tells you nothing about their history. You don't know they've actually done evil, only that they'd have no qualms about it. Good enough! Slit the guy's throat from ear to ear. How is that Good?
Because he would have... No. You don't punish people for what they might do, much less kill them for it.
But it's war... Says who? You? Is there an actual declared by someone with authority to do so, or is this just one rival group unwilling to let another win (i.e. one political party obstructing another no matter what?)
Yes, it's a real war and that makes everything okay. No it doesn't. That's why we have war crimes tribunals. Certain evil acts are often committed in wartime because it's expedient, or because there aren't any better alternatives available, but they remain evil acts.
The question of whether or not an act is evil should depend only on what you are doing, and the context in which you are doing it, but not on who you are doing it do.
Your buddy has been wounded and will die a slow, agonizing death. There's no help for him. He asks you to kill him. Depending on who you are, that might be difficult to do, but I certainly don't consider it evil. Nor are state executions of convicted criminals. Killing isn't always evil; murder is always evil. Rape is always evil. Deliberately framing anyone -- even an evil person -- for some crime they didn't commit is always evil. No one should need RAW on alignment to tell them that.
Wait, why does killing helpless evil make it an evil act?
Helpless doesn't make them innocent. Only Innocent slain is an evil act in the alignment description.
My answer will get into things that do not, and for practical reasons should not, take place in most games.
Does your character have 100% certain knowledge that everyone you're about to kill has committed evil acts which are sufficiently heinous to warrant the death penalty? Maybe one guy just started his job yesterday, hasn't done anything so far, and isn't evil. He's neutral and a bit uncomfortable with parts of the job description but he needs the money. Maybe everyone in the room is evil, spends every waking hour thinking evil thoughts and making evil plans, but again they're new at the job and haven't carried out any plans yet. It's not Good to kill people for thinking bad thoughts. Maybe they're all into petty evil, but nothing that warrants killing them.
It would bog down the typical game way, way too much to have to capture all the bad guys, turn them over to local authorities for trial, etc. and I don't suggest doing all that. It's a fantasy adventure game, not a courtroom procedural. In any case that's more of a Law/Chaos question than one of Good/Evil.
Still, here's a guy asleep in his bed. You don't know him. You've never exchanged two words. Your detect evil spell makes an 18-second assessment of the room and tells you to what degree "X" number of creatures in the room have the potential for evil. It tells you nothing about their history. You don't know they've actually done evil, only that they'd have no qualms about it. Good enough! Slit the guy's throat from ear to ear. How is that Good?
Because he would have... No. You don't punish people for what they might do, much less kill them for it.
But it's war... Says who? You? Is there an actual declared by someone with authority to do so, or is this just one...
I disagree with you on enough accounts that I don't think we could reconcile.
I allow torture as a neutral act in my games.
Killing isn't always evil; murder is always evil.
Yes, that tells us a definition of the words 'killing' and 'murder'. Without knowing when killing is OK, it doesn't help us much.
To me killing these acolytes in their sleep isn't 'Good' but it isn't notably worse than standard RPG behaviour of killing people when they're not helpless. Either way, you're using killing to solve your problems because it's more convenient than the alternatives - something that is frowned upon in civilized society.
If a group of bandits attacks the PCs, do you consider killing them to be murder? What if PCs could defeat them with nonlethal damage at very little risk to themselves (which is true in most battles in my experience)? Does it make a difference if they're orc bandits? If they're known murderers? If it's a dragon instead?
Wait, why does killing helpless evil make it an evil act?
Helpless doesn't make them innocent. Only Innocent slain is an evil act in the alignment description.
My answer will get into things that do not, and for practical reasons should not, take place in most games.
Does your character have 100% certain knowledge that everyone you're about to kill has committed evil acts which are sufficiently heinous to warrant the death penalty? Maybe one guy just started his job yesterday, hasn't done anything so far, and isn't evil. He's neutral and a bit uncomfortable with parts of the job description but he needs the money. Maybe everyone in the room is evil, spends every waking hour thinking evil thoughts and making evil plans, but again they're new at the job and haven't carried out any plans yet. It's not Good to kill people for thinking bad thoughts. Maybe they're all into petty evil, but nothing that warrants killing them.
If he thinks evil;, but does not evil then he isn't evil. He is neutral.
Detect evil doesn't detect evil intent: only evil past (and evil magic).
Still, here's a guy asleep in his bed. You don't know him. You've never exchanged two words. Your detect evil spell makes an 18-second assessment of the room and tells you to what degree "X" number of creatures in the room have the potential for evil. It tells you nothing about their history. You don't know they've actually done evil, only that they'd have no qualms about it. Good enough! Slit the guy's throat from ear to ear. How is that Good?
Again, they are neutral leaning evil if they have done no evil. They don't work with detect evil.
Babies can be evil if potential is al you need. But most people don't let Detect Evil work on babies.
Heck, in real life, most babies don't have qualms from doing evil. Do you know how many babies strangle their twin in the womb for more food? (look it up, scary fact)