Also people that think killing in their sleep is an ok war time act should read up on what a war crime is. Here's a hint. That. That's a war crime. Hell it's a war crime to injure a soldier and then kill him after he is disabled. Sleeping? Evil.
If that were true, pretty much every drone strike the US does is a war crime.
I allow torture as a neutral act in my games.As per the Treat Injury rules
Any character may attempt to torture a living target with physical and mental anguish; the results of such torture can be determined with a Heal check. Note that torture is an evil act, and as such may have repercussions on good characters
You are wrong.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well geez, I dunno... reading this thread, one question comes to mind: did the paladin even try to be a paladin? i.e. infiltrate: ok, part of the mission; what about the other part of the mission, assassinate the leader: ok, part of the mission.
Wait whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? paladin nodded to assassinate some cult leader? did he *try* to argue, "Can I challenge him to a duel once I get to his chambers?" or "Can we capture him instead, and deliver him to you all for interrogation and intelligence gathering"
He's the freaggin LEADER. Wouldn't cult G want to know what cult E was all about, their plans, associates, who they have bribed at the City Hall, etc.?
In short, if mission was to A) infiltrate; and B) kill leader, at the very least the paladin should have stuck to the mission: get to leader as fast and quietly as possible. It's ok to hit someone coming at you with a sword - self-defence, and being a pally, he could have said, while drawing sword, "We have nothing against you, as you have been made pawns into your LEADER's unholy endeavors - step aside and no harm will come to you!"
vs.
....kill 'em all.... ALLLLL OF THEM! IN THEIR SLEEEEEEP!
I think this could qualify as "Utmost Unpalladinni Award of the Year" at the Annual Antipaladin Awards.
|
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.
Wow that is some serious inconsistency on your DM's part, in my opinion, as far as what is evil.
Detect evil doesn't detect evil intent: only evil past (and evil magic).
This is incorrect. Detect evil specifically states "Creatures with actively evil intent count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell."
Conversely, that means the other detect alignment spells work the same, so detect good can ping a Creature with actively good intent, even if they happen to be neutral or evil.
A man could be a very good guy, but if someone raped his daughter, you can bet he will likely ping on the paladin's detect evil radar for a while as he plots the murder of his daughter's attacker.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, you could have a really evil terrorist, who happens to love the orphans of his country, and acts selflessly in regards to them specifically. This uncharacteristic altruism may very well cause him to ping "good" at certain times.
RD
Did the DM express concern about how you guys went about it?
Would it have been better to wake them up one by one and challenge them to singles combat?
I admit I am confused.
Seems to be right out of the first book of the black company TBH.
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.
You seem to think that things in-game must be either Good or Evil (using the in-game terms). They can certainly be Neutral. I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be part of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also people that think killing in their sleep is an ok war time act should read up on what a war crime is. Here's a hint. That. That's a war crime. Hell it's a war crime to injure a soldier and then kill him after he is disabled. Sleeping? Evil.
Killing a disabled soldier is absolutely a war crime. It's forbidden by Article 12 of the First Geneva Convention. That only deals with sick and injured soldiers.
If you have a particular treaty, convention, international law, or whatever that says that targeting sleeping soldiers is illegal, I'd love to see it.
A reminder to people commenting on the paladin in this thread - the paladin in question is a 5E paladin, and as such doesn't have to be lawful good, and only follows a code that's picked at 3rd level.
5E paladins can be chaotic evil. 5e paladins can't fall. They closest they can come to falling is the DM saying "you can't take any more paladin levels and need to multiclass."
(Though none of the codes presented in the Player's Handbook mesh particularly well with the chaotic evil playstyle - even the Oath of Vengeance requires seeking battle with "the greater evil.")
So, in light of the fact that a 5E paladin can murder babies all day and still be a paladin, odds are pretty good the paladin wasn't breaking anything by killing evil clerics in their sleep.
(Depending on their practices, killing clerics of Droskar may well be always justified. I wouldn't bat an eye at a paladin who killed a cleric of Kostchtchie or Lamashtu in their sleep.)
RD
Did the DM express concern about how you guys went about it?
Would it have been better to wake them up one by one and challenge them to singles combat?I admit I am confused.
Seems to be right out of the first book of the black company TBH.
The DM did not express any concern until AFTER THE FACT.
She also said something about giving us a point of what she called "negative inspiration." Inspiration is a 5E mechanic (see spoiler for more details on that).
The GM described this "negative inspiration" as bring a form of "bloodlust" that might kick in at some later point--clearly a spontaneous house rule.
Inspiration is a rule the Dungeon Master can use to reward you for playing your character in a way that’s true to his or her personality traits, ideal, bond, and flaw. By using inspiration, you can draw on your personality trait of compassion for the downtrodden to give you an edge in negotiating with the Beggar Prince. Or inspiration can let you call on your bond to the defense of your home village to push past the effect of a spell that has been laid on you.
Gaining Inspiration
Your DM can choose to give you inspiration for a variety of reasons. Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way. Your DM will tell you how you can earn inspiration in the game. You either have inspiration or you don’t—you can’t stockpile multiple “inspirations” for later use.
Using Inspiration
If you have inspiration, you can expend it when you make an attack roll, saving throw, or ability check. Spending your inspiration gives you advantage on that roll. Additionally, if you have inspiration, you can reward another player for good roleplaying, clever thinking, or simply doing something exciting in the game. When another player character does something that really contributes to the story in a fun and interesting way, you can give up your inspiration to give that character inspiration.
I spoke with the GM about the dangers of unannounced spontaneous house rules after the game, but I don't think much came out of it.
Is the Black Company a 5E adventure module? From what I understand, she is running use through the 5E Encounters scenarios (that's 5E's version of Organized Society), but is too lazy to track all of our records sheets, or really, to even follow any of the official rules for Organized Play.
|
From the original post (emphasis added):
"In short, we snuck out of our rooms, and stabbed several acolytes in their sleep. Evil act? Or acceptible, as they are evil enemies in a rival order during possible war time?"
and:
"I argued that it was war time between two rival factions"
Well, which is it? Are you at war? Or are you not at war? This would seem to make a big difference.
Assassination might arguably be justified as a means to avert a war, but you can't then justify actions during the assassination because "we were at war." If you weren't at war, then you weren't at war and you need to evaluate things--including the whole premise of the assassination mission--differently.
The next complication is that you represent "rival factions." Rival factions of what? Are these factions equivalent to nations in themselves or are they each one of several in different nations?
The question of whether or not the actions were acceptable or evil (or whether they fall into another category of evil, but justified) will depend upon the specific moral philosophy that your group/DM adopts in your game, but it makes a big difference whether your ostensibly good aligned group:
A. Infiltrated an enemy organization in a rival nation that is already at war with your nation and cleverly slaughtered them in order to facilitate assassinating their leader
B. Infiltrated a rival organization in your own nation that may possibly have had future plans to start killing members of your organization and/or take over the government and cleverly slaughtered them in order to facilitate assassinating their leader
C. Infiltrated a rival organization in a setting where there not necessarily any overarching state that either organization answers to (and thus the monasteries are both quasi state actors like ancient world tribes) and cleverly slaughtered them in an effort to assassinate their leader
C1. Where there was an existing or eminent condition of lethal hostilities between the groups
C2. Where there was a suspicion that hostilities between the groups might someday elevate to lethal levels.
Depending upon the answers and the situation, I might or might not evaluate your group's actions are evil, but I don't think that it can be properly evaluated outside the context of the mission as a whole. It could be that the whole mission is evil and thus any actions taken in support of it are too, or it could be that the mission is not evil but you committed evil acts in the course of it, or it could be that there's nothing wrong with the mission and nothing wrong with what your characters did. In either case, it makes a big difference whether you are the German SS troops attacking Poland by subterfuge in order to start a war of conquest, the Japanese aviators attacking Pearl Harbor by surprise, or the Israeli Defense Force starting the six day war shortly before the Arab armies could do so.
Whether the individual monks your characters killed were evil, good, or normal, on the other hand, has very little to do with anything. Your characters' actions have to be justified on the grounds of their goals and situation, not on the grounds of what the NPCs might someday have done to someone else somewhere. Shooting a saint in wartime is generally thought to be justified if he's on the other side. Shooting a murderer for cutting you off in traffic is not justified even if a judge would be morally obligated to sentence him to death and an executioner would be justified in dropping him off the scaffold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I allow torture as a neutral act in my games.As per the Treat Injury rulesAny character may attempt to torture a living target with physical and mental anguish; the results of such torture can be determined with a Heal check. Note that torture is an evil act, and as such may have repercussions on good charactersYou are wrong.
There are lots of things I disagree with the game designers on. Just because the rules say something doesn't mean you have to use it at your home table.
RD
Did the DM express concern about how you guys went about it?
Would it have been better to wake them up one by one and challenge them to singles combat?I admit I am confused.
Seems to be right out of the first book of the black company TBH.
The DM did not express any concern until AFTER THE FACT.
She also said something about giving us a point of what she called "negative inspiration." Inspiration is a 5E mechanic (see spoiler for more details on that).
The GM described this "negative inspiration" as bring a form of "bloodlust" that might kick in at some later point--clearly a spontaneous house rule.
** spoiler omitted **...
Black Company is a series of books about magic and mercenaries from Glen Cook.
There is a D20 supplement based on the series.Some of the better writing about magic, illusion, necromancy, and evil doing the "right thing".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are lots of things I disagree with the game designers on. Just because the rules say something doesn't mean you have to use it at your home table.I allow torture as a neutral act in my games.As per the Treat Injury rulesAny character may attempt to torture a living target with physical and mental anguish; the results of such torture can be determined with a Heal check. Note that torture is an evil act, and as such may have repercussions on good charactersYou are wrong.
There's also the fact that those aren't official Pathfinder rules, they're a 3PP supplement made by SKR.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RD: your DM was darn right to feel kinda queasy after what you guys did. This kind of butchery is gross, even in a game setting. You should accept whatever is coming at you. I don't think you should listen to the "it wasn't evil" crowd on that one, and just admit that this was at best, mob mentality at its worst. The worst part is that there's a complicit pally in the mix, and I don't care about the technicalities of 5E on this: you're on the Pathfinder boards, and this kind of "graphic scene" play is not suitable at most tables period (I sure hope there was no kids at your table). Perhaps she's inexperienced: if it was my table, the paladin would have suffered a divine intervention seizure on the spot to make the message clear, especially if the player is a novice (i.e. fair warning that next time your god is stripping you of paladinhood - again, don't care if 5E is messed up on this...)
How is this actually a question?
RD: your DM was darn right to feel kinda queasy after what you guys did. This kind of butchery is gross, even in a game setting. You should accept whatever is coming at you. I don't think you should listen to the "it wasn't evil" crowd on that one, and just admit that this was at best, mob mentality at its worst. The worst part is that there's a complicit pally in the mix, and I don't care about the technicalities of 5E on this: you're on the Pathfinder boards, and this kind of "graphic scene" play is not suitable at most tables period (I sure hope there was no kids at your table). Perhaps she's inexperienced: if it was my table, the paladin would have suffered a divine intervention seizure on the spot to make the message clear, especially if the player is a novice (i.e. fair warning that next time your god is stripping you of paladinhood - again, don't care if 5E is messed up on this...)
So your whole objection is "Ewww gross" not that it's evil?
|
|
I don't care about the technicalities of 5E on this: you're on the Pathfinder boards, and this kind of "graphic scene" play is not suitable at most tables period (I sure hope there was no kids at your table).
I don't understand this viewpoint AT ALL. So, if you woke them, evidently evil as I understand them to be, it would be acceptable to THEN slaughter them? OP made it clear imo that the acolytes were trouble from the start. Why allow them to call for assistance and leave little time to set up your "monster attack" when you can kill them without resistance?
I can give you that the paladin was acting in a dishonorable fashion, but none of the other players ought to suffer in any way. That was a reasonable course of action that the gm didn't object to initially.
|
|
RD: your DM was darn right to feel kinda queasy after what you guys did. This kind of butchery is gross, even in a game setting. You should accept whatever is coming at you. I don't think you should listen to the "it wasn't evil" crowd on that one, and just admit that this was at best, mob mentality at its worst. The worst part is that there's a complicit pally in the mix, and I don't care about the technicalities of 5E on this: you're on the Pathfinder boards, and this kind of "graphic scene" play is not suitable at most tables period (I sure hope there was no kids at your table). Perhaps she's inexperienced: if it was my table, the paladin would have suffered a divine intervention seizure on the spot to make the message clear, especially if the player is a novice (i.e. fair warning that next time your god is stripping you of paladinhood - again, don't care if 5E is messed up on this...)So your whole objection is "Ewww gross" not that it's evil?
Not to mention that the gross part was only done after they were dead. If they'd done the 'gross' part while they were still alive - I'd agree that it was evil as it was unnecessary pain & probably qualify as torture. But - they only did it after they were already dead anyway.
By the logic of desecrating the bodies being evil - then so are researchers for car crashes that use human knees - plus every modern doctor since they all dissect a human corpse during med school.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. I think trying to mutilate the bodies to simulate an animal attack underground in the middle of a duergar fortress was foolish and a complete waste of time (and really should've drawn attention, because that's noisy), but not a serious trangression. It's again dishonorable (just like killing people in their sleep), but its not evil.
@ Caineach - if you consider torture to be a "neutral" act, I'm kind of curious how far someone has to go to commit an evil act in your game.
Power is not a means; it is an end.... The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
I forget whether the scene is in Wild Geese or Wild Geese 2, but these are 1960's movies about failed mercenary missions with British commando mercenaries. In one of those 2 movies (I think its Wild Geese 2), there's a scene where the commandos are using a poison gas to kill enemy guards sleeping in their barracks (in order to do a prison escape with less confrontation). I couldn't help but consider "that's quite dark, what their doing". Stating you kill someone in their sleep may or may not invoke the evil that's going on, but watching it happen in a movie really makes you see the darkness that it is. I actually felt very uncomfortable watching that scene. There's nothing especially graphic about the scene, however, just witnessing it happening makes the point.
I think killing sleeping monks is an evil act in this case. I believe this was murder for personal gain. The PCs were promised 'the opportunity to gain "great powers over air and sky".' It appears the PCs were not carrying out the mission for their commitment to the rival order, but to increase their own power.
What I think is not overly relevant as I am not the GM in this case. Where I am the GM I allow the players to play their character and if there are alignment repercussions I let that fall as I see fit. If, despite alignment, the paladin was behaving according to code, repercussions would be minimal. If the paladin was not behaving according to code I would be designing the next part of the campaign to include an atonement quest where the paladin could explore the meaning of the code fully.
I also take the view that one evil act does not automatically result in a change of alignment. A pattern of behaviour does. I would look at this act in the context of the adventure and take into account the previous conduct of the PCs.
In the Pathfinder campaign where I play a paladin, my character would not even have taken the mission. Infiltrate and assassinate are contrary to his code, and he would have suggested other approaches first.
The final aspect to this is the game rules. The original post does not say what system is being played. Some rules have a very low tolerance of what constitutes an evil act. The 3rd edition Book of Vile Darkness included lying (sometimes), cheating, theft and greed in the list of evil acts. Therefore if the GM in this case thinks that killing the sleeping monks is an evil act, I wouldn't argue.
|
|
There's nothing especially graphic about the scene, however, just witnessing it happening makes the point.
True - but I feel a bit of the same watching execution scenes - even in cases where the movie makes a point of how much of an evil mass-murdering serial killer they are. The same sort of guy I'd cheer the hero for killing in a gun-fight. Still doesn't make said executions evil acts.
I think that humans are mostly hardwired for straight-up brawls rather than where one party doesn't fight back. Doesn't make them either the smart or inherently good way to handle it.
Heh. I think trying to mutilate the bodies to simulate an animal attack underground in the middle of a duergar fortress was foolish and a complete waste of time (and really should've drawn attention, because that's noisy), but not a serious trangression. It's again dishonorable (just like killing people in their sleep), but its not evil.
@ Caineach - if you consider torture to be a "neutral" act, I'm kind of curious how far someone has to go to commit an evil act in your game.
Power is not a means; it is an end.... The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
Evil is easy. Take pleasure in harming another or promote something for self gain. Torture isn't inherently evil, but anyone who pursues it for fun definitely is. Very few acts are inherently an alignment. The reason an action is taken is what determines the alignment.
|
|
Very few acts are inherently an alignment. The reason an action is taken is what determines the alignment.
Is there a justification for torture? Best not derail, but the more dire the act, the harder the justification. Killing an enemy before they can attack is tactical. Waking, muting, and torturing an enemy, on the other hand, is evil. No matter how you try and justify the action, very few instances of torture are even close to justified.
There's nothing especially graphic about the scene, however, just witnessing it happening makes the point.True - but I feel a bit of the same watching execution scenes - even in cases where the movie makes a point of how much of an evil mass-murdering serial killer they are. The same sort of guy I'd cheer the hero for killing in a gun-fight. Still doesn't make said executions evil acts.
I think that humans are mostly hardwired for straight-up brawls rather than where one party doesn't fight back. Doesn't make them either the smart or inherently good way to handle it.
I didn't state it was an evil act, just that its a lot darker than you might think just saying "I kill them in their sleep". It certainly isn't a good act, perhaps better said as a necessary evil - there's evilness to it.
Considering torture doesn't work, why would you ever do it if not for fun?
Considering torture doesn't work, why would you ever do it if not for fun?
We don't live in a world where magic can prevent someone from telling a lie.
It what situation is torture, the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain, not an evil act?
Just curious.
Without knowing when killing is OK, it doesn't help us much.
I assume no one wants to get into an exhaustive list of specific situations that we divide into "OK" and "not OK"; I know I don't.
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.
IMHO killing a helpless person is worse than killing someone who has no chance to defend himself, run away, or beg/bribe/intimidate you to stop.
I agree with you that killing to solve your problems because it's more convenient than the alternatives is frowned upon in civilized society; there's a reason adventurers are often called 'murderhobos.' It's because players don't want anything to get in the way of a good time. Up to a point that's perfectly understandable: game time is limited and therefore precious, so doing what works most quickly makes the most sense...for the players.
For the characters within any reasonable game world, most adventuring parties, regardless of professed alignment, would almost certainly be regarded as little more than bandits themselves. Sure, laws and civilization level vary from region to region even within a single campaign world, but if the party's mindset is "let's go looking for people/things we can kill so we can get rich" that's not very Good, is it? Doing all that stuff doesn't make you a bad player or even a bad roleplayer because for the most part, that is how the game is played; part of the willing suspension of disbelief is accepting that your characters are going to do things you probably never would IRL and they're not going to have to deal with consequences that they probably should even in-game.
If a group of bandits attacks the PCs, do you consider killing them to be murder?
Probably not. If they attack without warning and make a real attempt to harm us, screw 'em, they're dead and I'm happy about it. If they're holdup guys and the threat of violence isn't much more than implied, I feel no obligation to hand over my stuff to avoid violence. If they want to try and take it, and I end up killing some or all of them in self-defense, I might briefly be sad about the needless deaths but would not feel I'd done a thing wrong. However...
What if PCs could defeat them with nonlethal damage at very little risk to themselves?
...needlessly killing someone you can easily defeat or escape from without lethal damage might be considered murder, but it depends on other factors. What do you do with them after defeating them? If you can pretty easily turn them over to local authorities, then why not do that? If you can't easily do that, and leaving them alive just passes the threat of lethal damage on to their next victim, I can certainly see it making sense to kill them, but it could still be murder. Again, lots of possible factors.
Does it make a difference if they're orc bandits?
Nope.
If they're known murderers?
Nope.
Note that for both orc bandits and known murderers, I'm not saying they shouldn't be killed or that killing either group is necessarily murder. Just that the answer I gave above applies equally to human bandits, orc bandits, known murderers, whatever.
If it's a dragon instead?
Depends on how dragons are viewed in the campaign. I know some GMs think of their entire species as quintessentially alien with regard to humans; they don't think like us, never will, they're Not Human and deserve no consideration. I find that hard to reconcile with intelligent, good-aligned dragons you can talk to. It's still another sapient creature, only a lot more dangerous to you. If you just skip and and murdering a sleeping dragon that hasn't done anything to you, and about whom you know nothing other than the color of its hide, just so you can steal its hoard? Yeah, still evil. Also, skinning it to make dragonhide armor? That's vile, man, what if some other creature skinned humans and tanned the hides to make leather goods?
Considering torture doesn't work, why would you ever do it if not for fun?We don't live in a world where magic can prevent someone from telling a lie.
Relying on zone of truth isn't exactly a sound strategy.
Considering torture doesn't work, why would you ever do it if not for fun?
Most of the folks who argue for using torture do so because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that it does work.
It what situation is torture, the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain, not an evil act?
Just curious.
I think a lot of that boils down to how one views ethics and morality. Some would argue that if torturing a bad guy leads to information that saves lives, the good (lives saved) balances out the bad (torture), making it a neutral act. Others would say that even if done with the intent of protecting innocent life, the act itself is still wrong.
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 a group of adventurers were to non-lethally defeat a group of bandits and then turn them over to the "authorities", what is going to happen? In medieval times "due process" didn't really exist, they would end up getting hung, or otherwise disposed of. So still dead, just with a time delay.
|
|
Ok. The sleeping dudes are all evil. The paladin confirmed it via detect evil.
1) Scenario 1 "Americaaaaaa! Ffffeik yeahhhhh!": The party slays them all. Their souls all go to the lower planes and result in more fiends.
1) Scenario 2 "Sarenrae Salvation": The party captures or knocks them out or spares them all. 2 out of 4 have a change of god or alignment later and go to Elysium and Axis respectively. 2 of them stay on the same path: their souls go to the lower planes and result in more fiends.
This is a game where afterlife is real: what is the justification for not trying to redeem evildoers or hope they'll somehow break out of their evil ways? These are fellow humanoids not some slimy irredeemable terrors from the depths who feast on humans as their main diet staple...
I can only say that I'm glad to not play in a group that thinks killing a helpless evil character is an evil act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. The sleeping dudes are all evil. The paladin confirmed it via detect evil.
1) Scenario 1 "Americaaaaaa! Ffffeik yeahhhhh!": The party slays them all. Their souls all go to the lower planes and result in more fiends.
1) Scenario 2 "Sarenrae Salvation": The party captures or knocks them out or spares them all. 2 out of 4 have a change of god or alignment later and go to Elysium and Axis respectively. 2 of them stay on the same path: their souls go to the lower planes and result in more fiends.
This is a game where afterlife is real: what is the justification for not trying to redeem evildoers or hope they'll somehow break out of their evil ways? These are fellow humanoids not some slimy irredeemable terrors from the depths who feast on humans as their main diet staple...
Scenario 3 "More likely than scenario 2": The party captures or knocks them out or spares them all. None of them repent, and in fact they try to escape and kill you, or alert their friends to your presence.
You acted chaotically in killing the sleeping acolytes. But did you act evil? Hmmm... Let's walk through it.
1- just being evil is not a crime punishable by death. I sure hope your paladin isn't the type to wander towns killing everyone who pings evil.
2- the acolytes weren't likely a danger to anyone other than your party at the time. And that is because you are invading their home.
3- the party invaded their home on a very chaotic good mission to assassinate a rival leader.
Given the extenuating circumstances i would rule this a CN act.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@RD:
Honestly, the only thing I see as an issue is the idea of a Paladin being ok with mutilating the corpses. Killing the enemy in their sleep to avoid escalation and most likely, a dead PC party, I'm good with. For my 2 cents, the Paladin in the group didn't fully cross that line until mutilation of the dead started.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ravingdork
Just a few comments:
Your GM sent you on an assassination mission, and that is simply not appropriate for good characters. Where you ended up is no surprise; the enemy murdered in their sleep and their bodies desecrated. So what you are left with is a flimsy justification for your actions which amounts to: we could have been more evil if we wanted to. Or in other words: what we did was evil, but there are people out there who are even more evil than us, which makes us the good guys.
The PCs (being good) should have refused the mission, but then you don't have a game to play. My advice: have a frank discussion with the GM with the aim to agree that you want to play neutral or evil characters.
Problem solved.
|
|
You do know Bush is a wanted war criminal outside of the US right? And yes. It is true. You shoot a guy and put him out of a fight and shoot him again it's a war crime. Look it up.If that were true, pretty much every drone strike the US does is a war crime.
Also people that think killing in their sleep is an ok war time act should read up on what a war crime is. Here's a hint. That. That's a war crime. Hell it's a war crime to injure a soldier and then kill him after he is disabled. Sleeping? Evil.
That's not actually a real thing - unless you count a private 'court' (no legal standing) in Malaysia. Basically it was a headline grabber by a law professor from the US. And that had to do with the (either enhanced interrogation or torture depending on the side of the spectrum your on) program - not anything to do with killing anyone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
l So what you are left with is a flimsy justification for your actions which amounts to: we could have been more evil if we wanted to. Or in other words: what we did was evil, but there are people out there who are even more evil than us, which makes us the good guys.
The PCs (being good) should have refused the mission
this
|
|
Honest question for those that see this as evil:
Would you still call it evil if the party woke up the acolytes, cast something like Forced Quiet (allowing them to defend themselves), and then killed them?
Why does killing a defenseless evil enemy that would attack you as soon as he saw you as a threat in an attempt to kill you be evil?
Is there a fantasy equivalent of the Geneva Convention or any other rules of engagement?.the fantasy equivalent of Geneva convention is to have a paladin or good cleric in the party
Among the good gods is a god that "burned a castle to the ground with holy fire" and employed a herald named "The Hand of Vengeance" and a god who "sees Sarenrae's willingness to forgive as folly and a sign of weakness" and whose PALADIN CODE contains the words " I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender".
Yeah, no.