Fifty is a big number.
Five Zero
50.
Even if you are doing it for the greater good, even if you are killing only those who are wicked and evil, you certainly are NOT Good yourself when you kill FIFTY non-combatants.
That's not just killing the goblins that attacked you, that's also outright murdering their goblinlings...probably for multiple villages.
That said, you must be doing it for personal gain or for no cause at all, as per the feat.
Now, I am unfamiliar with the backgrounds that can circumvent the prereq but "Bloodthirsty", "First Kill", and "The Kill" do not sound like Good aligned backgrounds.
Though I must say, I like the idea Weirdo pitched about an executioner. LN Inquisitor of Damerrich, maybe even even LG? Probably never FINISHING the story feat, but you could qualify for it that way.
*edit* whoops, nope. That nasty "For personal gain or no cause at all" clause in there. Sorry, no moral high ground here.
Simple solution to your problem, OP.
Ask him if and how he meets the prerequisites.
Check his alignment to make sure it is in league with the story he pitches for how he meets the prerequisites.
Adjust whatever needs adjusted accordingly.
Indeed. The "for personal gain or no reason at all" means that even someone who believes the deaths are for a just cause doesn't qualify.
Let's hypothetically say a state executioner believes that the justice system is usually right, that people sentenced to death deserve to die, and that someone needs to do the job. So being state executioner is actually a Lawful moral choice, not purely for personal gain.
If they don't care about the courts being correct and are indifferent to whether the death penalty is appropriate or just, and are only in it for the money then they're a sociopath. At best.
For the noncombatant angle, let's go by the Geneva convention. It's either an enemy combatant who has been disabled/incapacitated/captured, a designated nonviolent military medic or chaplain, or civilians "not taking a direct part in hostilities". Noncombatant is used as a synonym for "persons taking no active part in hostilities". A bit of Googling reveals no consideration that a sleeping (and probably dangerous) enemy soldier is a noncombatant.
The key words in the feat are "slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for either your own personal gain or for no reason at all". That's evil, and no amount of "what if you were paid by an infallible diviner to utilitarian ends?" can justify it.I think "you were the court-appointed executioner" for several years, because someone had to swing the axe/pull the lever ought to qualify. The only reason the executioner is killing these folks is that you're paid to do it, since you likely neither know them nor want to know them and you certainly wouldn't do it if you weren't getting paid.
The executioner does this as obligation to society also tho
|
Let's hypothetically say a state executioner believes that the justice system is usually right, that people sentenced to death deserve to die, and that someone needs to do the job. So being state executioner is actually a Lawful moral choice, not purely for personal gain.
It doesn't say you have to kill people purely for personal gain. Otherwise it would rule out "I killed him because I was paid, but I enjoyed it because he bullied me as a kid." I think as long as personal gain is your primary motivation it does qualify, as in: "I kill people because it's my job. I think it's justified because they're convicted murderers."
Though I must say, I like the idea Weirdo pitched about an executioner. LN Inquisitor of Damerrich, maybe even even LG? Probably never FINISHING the story feat, but you could qualify for it that way.
Wasn't me. I just agreed it was a good idea.
Trying to justify it makes you the lawyer for a killer knowing not only the fact he's killed but where all the bodies are hid. Both of you are going to hell period.
Bit confrontational for a fantasy game, eh?
Pathfinder generally is more accepting of violence and in particular killing than the real world is. The death penalty is controversial if not flat rejected in much of the Pathfinder playing world, but a LG patron of executions is not controversial in PF.
The executioner does this as obligation to society also tho
You could theoretically justify it as an executioner who does this job because he doesn't have many friends anyway, somebody's got to do it, and the ratio of "hours worked" to "how well you're paid" is pretty good.
You can be selfish, cynical, callous, pragmatic, and lazy without being precisely "evil".
The real sticking point on the prerequisite is "for no cause at all", since you could argue that "someone needed to do it" or "I hate to see people suffer, so I do it quick and clean" as causes, per se. A character can enjoy killing and want to kill (even indiscriminately) and not be evil insofar as they have realized that they shouldn't be ruled by their urges in this case and have instead sought a socially acceptable (and indeed arguably constructive) outlet for these urges. That doesn't mean that their reasons for doing it are pure and good, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A feat that motivates you to kill for personal gain or for no reason whatsoever can never be justified as anything but evil. Even neutral characters have problems with killing innocent people. You'd have to go out of your way to slaughter 50 noncombatants. Doesn't matter what alignment they are. Noncombatant means they aren't trying to kill you or otherwise pose no threat to you at all.
This feat encourages the murder hobo lifestyle. Yes it might be fun for a little bit like the first chapter of Baldur's Gate where I snuck around and backstabbed everyone except Gorion just to see if I could.
But, you are fooling yourself if you think this feat is going on anything other than an evil character. In fact I would outright ban this feat if someone tried to justify its use as non evil at my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no way this thing could be considered anything but evil. Maybe mechanically you can claim there's some way you could qualify for it and not being evil but from there on the feat is still "the blood of innocents". Basically you enjoy spilling the living essence of innocent humanoids for no better reason than pleasure and personal gain. Pretty much the by the book definition of "EVIL".
P.S.
I took a look at "The Kill" background...
The Kill: You killed someone when you were relatively young. You might have done it in selfdefense, in anger, or as part of an initiation ritual.
And it was easier than you suspected. Afterward, some individuals or groups started paying you to kill for them, and you made a lucrative career of assassination.
You take this as a background, you are someone who gets paid to kill people. Now, remind me, in PF what's the mandatory allignment for Assassins?
Why has no one stopped to consider the very nature of the feudal system when looking at this feat?
What Knight didn't fight for his own glory as much as for the glory of his liege-lord or king?
King A is at war with King B. Army A is sieging the castle of King B. In the first hours of the siege, the Knight in charge is going to order that all of the farm fields in the surrounding hamlets and the crofter's cottages be razed to prevent further resupply of King B's garrison.
How many "intelligent non-combatants" do you think die in this process? This is nothing more than war as usual to the average feudal mindset.
How many more do you think die as the siege engines are directed at the city gates and walls, and some overly and land within the protected settlements?
How many more die when starvation and disease set in?
When you send a detachment of soldiers to block up the water supplies, how many "intelligent non-combatants" do you think die then?
I ask you, does fighting loyally for your liege-lord or king qualify as evil?
None of the situations above are anything more than acceptable methods of war to the age of war that this concerns. There is no need for special targeting of civilians to even qualify for the story feat, necessarily.
All that is needed is someone who cares for his own personal glory and lineage (or income) as much as he cares for the honor and glory of his liege or king.
(EDIT) Now, I do agree that to the modern reader, all these tactics are avoided insomuch as possible. Howevever, no successful war can be waged without understanding that civilian casualties are to some degree unavoidable.
You could be a group of Holy Knights out to cleanse Castle Vampire of its undead blight, and end up killing enough non-combatants simply because of the potential for the vampires keeping feed-stock within the castle walls. What stereotypical Paladin /isn't/ prideful? Could this not also qualify?
--- In the end, I agree with many of the others that stated that morally grey is the way to best interpret this.
It's also a trope of western fiction that the experienced gunslinger might shoot a man dead for trying to cheat him at cards, getting the fatal shot off before the cheat can even draw.
Interpreted liberally, "shooting a man for cheating you" is "for personal gain" or at least "not for a cause".
I mean, Han shot Greedo before Greedo even drew. Whether or not "killing people" is seen as forgivable or not in fiction is largely a matter of who we view the protagonists are. From a certain perspective almost every single PC (Paladins and all) is evil, and from a different perspective every action (even those committed by evil characters) are justifiable. The best way to handle alignment questions is whatever a player can convincingly justify as falling within the bounds of one alignment or another fits that alignment category.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you Rogar, thank you Backhand. Thank you for the description of the kill that adds to what I've been saying. Trying to justify this as neutral even more insanely as good is mind boggling.
I don't think you get where others are coming from.
Let me try to explain this simply.
Forget about the flavor.
Nobody here is trying to argue that the people who wrote this feat didn't probably intend it to be for evil characters.
What all these people are trying to argue is that despite it's intended flavor, nothing in the feat actually mandates that the character taking the feat being evil. Killing non-combatants isn't inherently evil. Killing them for personal gain isn't either. Whether or not it is evil depends on the circumstances. The commonly cited example of it not being evil is an experienced executioner whose day job (personal gain) is killing condemned prisoners (non-combatants) who are guilty of heinous crimes. It's even possible for said executioner to be Good. No, really. There is a Lawful Good Empyreal Lord of executions. A devout follower who was paid for their duties would rack up the requirements for this feat rather quickly. Yes, a Lawful Good character getting this feat would rub against the flavor of it rather hard. Despite that, there is no actual mechanical reason why they couldn't.
Thank you Rogar, thank you Backhand. Thank you for the description of the kill that adds to what I've been saying. Trying to justify this as neutral even more insanely as good is mind boggling.I don't think you get where others are coming from.
Let me try to explain this simply.
Forget about the flavor.
Nobody here is trying to argue that the people who wrote this feat didn't probably intend it to be for evil characters.
What all these people are trying to argue is that despite it's intended flavor, nothing in the feat actually mandates that the character taking the feat being evil. Killing non-combatants isn't inherently evil. Killing them for personal gain isn't either. Whether or not it is evil depends on the circumstances. The commonly cited example of it not being evil is an experienced executioner whose day job (personal gain) is killing condemned prisoners (non-combatants) who are guilty of heinous crimes. It's even possible for said executioner to be Good. No, really. There is a Lawful Good Empyreal Lord of executions. A devout follower who was paid for their duties would rack up the requirements for this feat rather quickly. Yes, a Lawful Good character getting this feat would rub against the flavor of it rather hard. Despite that, there is no actual mechanical reason why they couldn't.
Followers of Damerrich do it for justice, so it's something more than personal gain
The "innocent" part is only mentioned in the name of the feat, nowhere in its mechanics. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other feats that can also be used in a way unfitting for their name.
Really, all it takes is a guy who kills for personal gain, but goes out of his way to *not* harm innocents - a darker version of Robin Hood that robs and murders rich tyrants and keeps the money.
He wouldn't be good, definitely not. But depending on his other actions, he might not be evil.
Followers of Damerrich do it for justice, so it's something more than personal gainThank you Rogar, thank you Backhand. Thank you for the description of the kill that adds to what I've been saying. Trying to justify this as neutral even more insanely as good is mind boggling.I don't think you get where others are coming from.
Let me try to explain this simply.
Forget about the flavor.
Nobody here is trying to argue that the people who wrote this feat didn't probably intend it to be for evil characters.
What all these people are trying to argue is that despite it's intended flavor, nothing in the feat actually mandates that the character taking the feat being evil. Killing non-combatants isn't inherently evil. Killing them for personal gain isn't either. Whether or not it is evil depends on the circumstances. The commonly cited example of it not being evil is an experienced executioner whose day job (personal gain) is killing condemned prisoners (non-combatants) who are guilty of heinous crimes. It's even possible for said executioner to be Good. No, really. There is a Lawful Good Empyreal Lord of executions. A devout follower who was paid for their duties would rack up the requirements for this feat rather quickly. Yes, a Lawful Good character getting this feat would rub against the flavor of it rather hard. Despite that, there is no actual mechanical reason why they couldn't.
OK, he does it for justice and he gets paid for it - he is still getting personal benefit in my example. Nowhere in the feat does it say that he has to do it for only personal benefit.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, he does it for justice and he gets paid for it - he is still getting personal benefit in my example. Nowhere in the feat does it say that he has to do it for only personal benefit.
Uh...
You must slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for either your own personal gain or for no cause at all
That's an either/or statement. You must kill them for your personal benefit or for no reason. If you are killing them for reasons outside that set, they don't count. Period. There is not another way to interpret that sentence in conversational English.
Saying they count even if there are other reasons in play is complete bullshit on a profound level that sometimes results in RPG books being written incredibly awkwardly rather than conversationally just so people won't do this.
Please stop.
|
That's an either/or statement. You must kill them for your personal benefit or for no reason. If you are killing them for reasons outside that set, they don't count. Period. There is not another way to interpret that sentence in conversational English.
So I take it Homer Simpson accidentally blowing up Springfield due to pastry-related control station console malfunction would not work to meet the prereq in your game? :P
(Yes, I can't believe some people are trying to weasel into this feat without taking the evil alignment either; I think the problems run beyond the gaming community though -
In a lot of respects, alignment doesn't quite capture the whole of a situation.
Just pointing out that there is a fair amount of wiggle-room with the feat.
A character could as easily qualify for the story feat from a background as a loyal retainer, an executioner, a mercenary auxiliary in a war, or as assassin.
Of course, an assassin character is required to be evil alignment (in most cases), though an argument could be made in favor of neutral alignment in some cases. (Those who are with a cultural norm in the "I am the weapon" philosophy)
It isn't about avoiding consequences of choices, here. I am not arguing that the killing of innocents is a *good* thing by any means, but I am not about to go so far out on the limb to state that it is *always* evil.
Take a modern analogue.
Someone joins the military because they can't afford post high-school education. This person becomes a jet-jock, and remains one, primarily because they love to fly (personal gain) and not necessarily out of patriotism. - Is the act of dropping a bomb on a military target that happens to have civilians nearby inherently evil?
A less modern analogue.
A mercenary fights in wars for profit. A mercenary is hired to be part of the auxiliaries in a legitimate war, for a legitimate king who doesn't have /quite/ enough solders to take part. - The mercenary is obviously doing this for the pay, but is taking part of a 'just war' inherently evil?
A mercenary could be (though of course, isn't necessarily going to always be) following the same rules of warfare as the king's own troops. Medieval warfare, and warfare in general, is not a pretty thing. Non-combatants will die.
Another one. Anyone remember the drummer boy? What about other non-combat camp followers to an army? They are not, by definition, combatants but are /definitely/ a part of the war effort. - Who usually took an arrow or a bullet first? The drummer boy. Why? It worsened morale, and helped cause confusion in the ranks because there were no longer drum beats to signal or keep cadence. - Is taking a legitimate military target an inherently evil act, even if one is in the military specifically for personal gain?
Are any of things "good" things? Obviously not. However, the inherent evil of the act (such as it is) leaves room for a grey interpretation. An evil act does not necessarily cause a character, or human being, to become an unrelenting black hole of evil as many of the posters so far are attempting to argue.
---
Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil characters can still find themselves (generally) on the side of good, despite the alignment. Lawful Neutral, and Neutral characters have plenty of room for a background of evil acts so long as their overall outlook hasn't skewed too far. Even the average Paladin who is too prideful for his own good could qualify for this feat. He may technically be lawful good, but his actions may speak volumes in the other direction. (Oath of vengeance anyone?)
I would be worried about DM'ing for a group of Chaotic Evil characters, because it is extremely difficult to deal with a group that wants to spread suffering and chaos for the fun of it.
However, I have absolutely no problem with a group of Lawful Evil characters or Neutral Evil characters. Is the morale compass always pointing north? No. - However, even these do not have to the charactured out into an "all evil, all of the time" outlook.
(EDIT) In fact, one of the more hilarious aspects of playing an all-evil party was the time when our characters decided to oust a count from his lands because he was too evil for our tastes. (He double crossed us on a contract), and we proceeded to run the lands on our own, and in proper fashion. - None of us did it for the right reasons, but we were all, somehow, managing to do right by our people- despite our evil inclinations. (Of course, this lead to us making use of local goblin tribes and inexpensive labor that no one cares about dying by the thousands, making peace with the nearby orc and orgre tribes because we simply didn't care if they were attacking /other/ people, as long as they weren't attacking ours, etc.) - We weren't forbidden from being good leaders simply because we were evil.
---
Now, this said, if the player can't come up with a background sufficient to justify the feat... fine, than I agree the feat shouldn't be allowed. - However, I disagree with lumping the feat into a requires evil alignment category right off the bat, because Alignment is not a trap, it's a general outlook that encompasses more than one possibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think "the mechanics don't match the name of the ability" argument should have gone out of style in Pathfinder when the "Smite Evil" ability in the PRB is in no sense a "smite" (A smite refers to a singular strong blow, whereas"Smite Evil" lasts all day.)
I think a lot of the problem is whether the criteria use "cause" in the sense of "a principle, ideal, goal, or movement to which a person or group is dedicated" or in the sense of "the reason or motive for some human action." By the former it's a lot easier to qualify for the feat, since "I killed him because he was trying to steal my horse" is not an ideal, but it is a reason.
Personally I would say the intent was to use "cause" in the sense of "ideal" because the feat is clearly intended to be taken by a character who is someone who kills for fun, and "I do this because it's fun" is a reason but not an ideal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, he does it for justice and he gets paid for it - he is still getting personal benefit in my example. Nowhere in the feat does it say that he has to do it for only personal benefit.Uh...
You must slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for either your own personal gain or for no cause at allThat's an either/or statement. You must kill them for your personal benefit or for no reason. If you are killing them for reasons outside that set, they don't count. Period. There is not another way to interpret that sentence in conversational English.
Saying they count even if there are other reasons in play is complete b$!&$#~! on a profound level that sometimes results in RPG books being written incredibly awkwardly rather than conversationally just so people won't do this.
Please stop.
Hmmm... You seem to need a refresher on basic logical skills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_disjunction_.28OR.29
If you have a paid executioner, then they are doing it "for profit" because they are getting paid. So it is TRUE that they are doing it for their own personal gain. It then follows because of how the word "or" works that they are doing it for their own personal gain or for no cause at all.
|
|
You must slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for either your own personal gain or for no cause at allThat's an either/or statement. You must kill them for your personal benefit or for no reason. If you are killing them for reasons outside that set, they don't count. Period. There is not another way to interpret that sentence in conversational English....
If you have a paid executioner, then they are doing it "for profit" because they are getting paid. So it is TRUE that they are doing it for their own personal gain. It then follows because of how the word "or" works that they are doing it for their own personal gain or for no cause at all.
Indeed.
To rule out other factors, you'd have to word it:
"You must slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for either purely your own personal gain or for no cause at all."
or less formally
"You must slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for no reason other than personal gain."
Let's review the last part defeat a powerful person sent to bring you to justice or usurp your position. Someone is after you for killing all those people. Their alignment will probably be better then yours. Or in the case of usurp your position just as rabid as you.
This is the only bit that I think an executioner couldn't reasonably fulfill, since there won't be anyone trying to bring them to justice and killing someone because they wanted your job is in fact evil. But that only prevents a nonevil character from completing the feat, not from taking it in the first place.
What disturbs me is they are trying to justify taking this feat in the first place.
They are doing it... for "personal gain"!
:P
Thank you Rogar, thank you Backhand. Thank you for the description of the kill that adds to what I've been saying. Trying to justify this as neutral even more insanely as good is mind boggling.I don't think you get where others are coming from.
Let me try to explain this simply.
Forget about the flavor.
Nobody here is trying to argue that the people who wrote this feat didn't probably intend it to be for evil characters.
What all these people are trying to argue is that despite it's intended flavor, nothing in the feat actually mandates that the character taking the feat being evil. Killing non-combatants isn't inherently evil. Killing them for personal gain isn't either. Whether or not it is evil depends on the circumstances. The commonly cited example of it not being evil is an experienced executioner whose day job (personal gain) is killing condemned prisoners (non-combatants) who are guilty of heinous crimes. It's even possible for said executioner to be Good. No, really. There is a Lawful Good Empyreal Lord of executions. A devout follower who was paid for their duties would rack up the requirements for this feat rather quickly. Yes, a Lawful Good character getting this feat would rub against the flavor of it rather hard. Despite that, there is no actual mechanical reason why they couldn't.
I'm put in the unusual position of agreeing with Snowblind.
Also, like people have said, if the murder stuff is backstory, it really seems like it could be okay. Maybe you're a repentant assassin. So let's just put the backstory out of the way entirely. Regardless of what you did then, it's what you do not that matters.
That said, killing two hundred noncombatants is hard to flavor as more than Neutral (since it's almost always avoidable bloodshed, meaning you're deliberately choosing to kill rather than capture an easy-to-capture enemy). You might struggle to complete this Goal. But taking the feat is fine.
Killing the person trying to "bring you to justice" would be easily justified, incidentally. Self-defense! Maybe you killed two hundred slaveowners, and the "justice" would be at the hands of evil or even corrupt Hellknights. The slaveowner part is debatable, but nobody would make a paladin fall for defending himself from a slavery-supporting Hellknight.
It's the "noncombatants" thing that, in my mind, simply would not fly as Good. My personal views on death aside, only someone like an executioner could get away with it.
Bear in mind, everyone, that the present-day killing can be for a good cause. It's only the backstory stuff that has to be for "personal gain".
This is the only bit that I think an executioner couldn't reasonably fulfill, since there won't be anyone trying to bring them to justice and killing someone because they wanted your job is in fact evil. But that only prevents a nonevil character from completing the feat, not from taking it in the first place.
What about rebels? Or perhaps you executed corrupt members of the nobility, and there's been a recent shift in politics that means those nobles' family members will soon be sending an assassin after you to seek their idea of "justice". Nobody says that this person bringing you to justice has to be justified. :P
Or it's a rival executioner who tries to kill you to take your prestigious position.
I think you could have an interesting story about a "good" character who ends up with this feat because of his indiscriminate slaughter of innocent members of "evil" or "monstrous" races and has to deal with the "challenging foe" who challenges them not only physically but also about the rightness of their actions.
Like some of the time you run a plot thread past the PC like "goblins have been raiding farms on the outskirts of the community, you are being paid to make that stop" and the PCs are going to deal with the problem by burning the goblin village to the ground killing every man, woman, and child (some of whom are assuredly noncombatants) and those players will invariably rationalize it with "it says they're evil in the bestiary."
Is a PC who really hates, say, Ogres and will kill them however possible when opportunity presents itself, because he or she thinks that ogres are a blight on the land and the world would be a better place if they were all dead (and kills the children because they're eventually going to grow big, and awful), necessarily evil? I'd say it's better to force that character to confront the morality of their actions in a narrative scene (when confronted by the NPC that takes them to task for their killing) than by simply telling them to change their alignment.
That sort of "wait a minute, am I the real monster?" dramatic scene is kind of why I'm in favor of letting PCs who do not aspire to be monsters take this feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is an executioner going to "slay a challenging foe that seeks to bring [them] to justice for [their] crimes or usurp [their] position"?
The justice bit is irrelevant, since that whole scenario presumes lawful authority to execute in the first place (so no "crime" is being committed" and there's no need to bring the person "to justice"). So we're left with slaying a challenging foe attempting to "usurp the position of executioner". So, the executioner, what ... kills their opponent in the next executioner election cycle? Kills off the next person who applies for the job? How does that work? And how is it not evil to slay someone who is trying to take your lawful job for their own employment?
First Kill: You've had blood on your hands since your youth, when you first took the life of another creature. Whether this act repulsed you or gave you pleasure, it was a formative experience. You gain access to the Killer combat trait and the Innocent Blood story feat.
Bloodthirsty: The first time you spilled a deserving foe's blood and watched the thing's life ebb out onto the hard ground, you found yourself filled with a mad, euphoric ecstasy like none other. The memory of this visceral experience returns to you in every battle, like an insatiable addiction that can only be abated with further bloodshed. You gain access to the Bloodthirsty combat trait and the Innocent Blood story feat.
The Kill: You killed someone when you were relatively young. You might have done it in self- defense, in anger, or as part of an initiation ritual. And it was easier than you suspected. Afterward, some individuals or groups started paying you to kill for them, and you made a lucrative career of assassination. You gain access to the Killer combat trait and the Innocent Blood story feat.
These are the other avenues into this story feat. The first is not outright evil on its face. The second might seem that way, too, but it's a bit harder to justify the euphoria you feel when kill people. The third one makes you an assassin outright. Regardless, the resolution to this story feat makes it clear: Slay 200 people who aren't involved in fighting you. Just random people. Go kill them. But note that the word used is "slay". That connotes something much more specific than "kill". Slay means, typically, to murder (as in the criminal act) or viciously kill. Then there's that whole bit about the challenging foe being someone attempting to bring you to justice or, alternatively, take over your role as a wholly unrepentant murderer.
The mental gymnastics used to avoid calling a spade a spade is curious here. Whether it is as explicit as one might like it to be, there is no disputing that the intent of this feat is to demonstrate a person's willingness to slaughter numerous relatively innocent, uninvolved individuals for what really amounts to "because they can and/or simply want to".
There isn't really any justifying it. It's evil. Pretty much by definition.
How is an executioner going to "slay a challenging foe that seeks to bring [them] to justice for [their] crimes or usurp [their] position"?
The justice bit is irrelevant, since that whole scenario presumes lawful authority to execute in the first place (so no "crime" is being committed" and there's no need to bring the person "to justice"). So we're left with slaying a challenging foe attempting to "usurp the position of executioner". So, the executioner, what ... kills their opponent in the next executioner election cycle? Kills off the next person who applies for the job? How does that work? And how is it not evil to slay someone who is trying to take your lawful job for their own employment?
First Kill: You've had blood on your hands since your youth, when you first took the life of another creature. Whether this act repulsed you or gave you pleasure, it was a formative experience. You gain access to the Killer combat trait and the Innocent Blood story feat.Bloodthirsty: The first time you spilled a deserving foe's blood and watched the thing's life ebb out onto the hard ground, you found yourself filled with a mad, euphoric ecstasy like none other. The memory of this visceral experience returns to you in every battle, like an insatiable addiction that can only be abated with further bloodshed. You gain access to the Bloodthirsty combat trait and the Innocent Blood story feat.The Kill: You killed someone when you were relatively young. You might have done it in self- defense, in anger, or as part of an initiation ritual. And it was easier than you suspected. Afterward, some individuals or groups started paying you to kill for them, and you made a lucrative career of assassination. You gain access to the Killer combat trait and the Innocent Blood story feat.These are the other avenues into this story feat. The first is not outright evil on its face. The second might seem that way, too, but it's a bit harder to justify the euphoria you feel when kill...
I wholeheartedly agree but I also feel KenderKin has a point too. Some people here will do anything in order to argue against something, sometimes just for the sake of arguing I feel...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it has to be for nothing but personal gain (or no reason), then a lot of the counter examples are ruled out. Most of them might include gain, but they include other reasons as well.
for example, the executioner might be getting paid, but unless he would kill anyone for the same money whether guilty or innocent of crime, and convicted or not, he is doing it for other reasons. Such as punishing the guilty, upholding the laws of society etc. etc. And of course if he would kill a non-convicted innocent just for money, he is evil.
Similarly to all of the greater good or prevent a evil from happening scenarios. Those are other reasons, beyond any personal gain that might accrue.
|
|
If it has to be for nothing but personal gain (or no reason), then a lot of the counter examples are ruled out. Most of them might include gain, but they include other reasons as well.
for example, the executioner might be getting paid, but unless he would kill anyone for the same money whether guilty or innocent of crime, and convicted or not, he is doing it for other reasons. Such as punishing the guilty, upholding the laws of society etc. etc. And of course if he would kill a non-convicted innocent just for money, he is evil.
Similarly to all of the greater good or prevent a evil from happening scenarios. Those are other reasons, beyond any personal gain that might accrue.
Again, I think you need a refresher (or perhaps a course) in logic. (As an aside, as a mid 40's Ph.D. mathematician, I regret that geometry is no longer taught in high school with all of the logical rules that it used to be. The result is that few people these days have any actual training in logic. For all that mathematics is often portrayed as not having much to do with day-to-day living, many could benefit from the exposure to a more logical frame of mind.)
"but they include other reasons as well" is irrelevant. A paid executioner is killing for their personal gain. So they are killing for their personal gain or for no reason at all. So they qualify for the feat. And they need not be evil, since if they are just supporting the state and killing people who have been convicted, they might well be lawful neutral or even lawful good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I think you need a refresher (or perhaps a course) in logic. (As an aside, as a mid 40's Ph.D. mathematician, I regret that geometry is no longer taught in high school with all of the logical rules that it used to be.
As a mid 40's Ph.D. mathematician, you should be aware that suggesting people disagree with you because they lack education is poor form.
You are killing someone for profit how is this good?
Easy, the answer is twofold.
It's a job and the law of the land has deemed them guilty. If you have a perfectly just system then why wouldn't someone good aligned feel morally justified in being a part of that system and making sure it works?I mean, after all, Paladins are Judge, Jury and Executioner, out in the field.
I think the Executioner angle works well, either that or you could count enemies that've been taken down and tied up as non-combatants, in which case its easy to imagine a Knight who defeats his enemies and takes them before a judge, then does the work himself after they've been judged as gaining this feat.
|
|
Hmmm... You seem to need a refresher on basic logical skills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_disjunction_.28OR.29
If you have a paid executioner, then they are doing it "for profit" because they are getting paid. So it is TRUE that they are doing it for their own personal gain. It then follows because of how the word "or" works that they are doing it for their own personal gain or for no cause at all.
Note how I said 'in conversational English' in regards to my assertion. I'm well aware of the rules of formal logic, thanks. I just don't agree that those are the standards that should necessarily apply here.
And, for the record, I'm fine with getting it via the backgrounds as a non-Evil character (that's pretty explicitly rules-allowed), I just abhor intentional misreadings of the clear intent of a bit of text in order to utilize loopholes.
To rule out other factors, you'd have to word it:
"You must slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for either purely your own personal gain or for no cause at all."
I agree this would make it slightly clearer, but don't feel it should be necessary every time a statement like this is made.
or less formally
"You must slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for no reason other than personal gain."
This actually doesn't work, as it changes the meaning of the statement. Killing them for 'no reason at all' would, at least debatably, no longer count with this wording, while it clearly does in the original. This wording would make things less clear, not more.
The difference between a Paladin and executioner is this. Paladins attempt if possible to redeem someone.
The difference between an executioner and a Paladin is that its not an executioners job to redeem someone. It's not their job to, in fact its their job to do the opposite. It's their job to accept that all the evidence has already been heard, all the questions already asked and to help that person slip quietly into the night.
If tomorrow you heard a story about a death row guard who let a prisoner escape because he felt the prisoner wasn't guilty, what would your opinion of that guard be? Not good I imagine.
Yeah being a paid Executioner seems like a decent way of qualifying for this without necessarily being evil.
Having The Kill as a traumatic backstory thing...