|
It is generally considered to not be a blatantly evil act to finish off a downed enemy, at least officially. Beyond that is really a discussion to have at your table. Just to be clear, by blatantly evil act, I mean one that would turn your character evil and thus be unable to play any more. Beyond that one gets into questions like, why can you finish off the orc, but not the human?
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
So, the answer is going to depend a lot on the group, the local culture, and the GM, not to mention the situation.
Some things to consider:
Does the party have a plausible way to restrain the person
Is there an authority the party can turn the person over to who can be trusted.
Can the party transport the person without failing the mission.
What will happen if the party leaves the person.
Some scenarios:
The party has defeated an enemy in the depths of the Mwangii expanse. They have no way to transport them, without endangering the mission. But if they leave him unconsious, he will almost certainly wake up when something hungry starts eating him alive. Killing him is a mercy, not an evil act.
The party has defeated a Razmiran "cleric" in Razmir. The person is clearly evil and has been preying on the local population. However, this is not a crime in Razmir, and if they turn him over to local authorities, they are the ones who will be arrested. But if they let him live, he will keep oppressing the locals. Taken in total, killing him is more good than evil.
The party has defeated an assassin on his way to kill Torch. So far, nothing the assassin has done is a crime, and while the party is convinced he is an assassin, they don't have proof. If they let him go, he will recover, and people will die. Killing him will save people's lives. Again, over all, more good than evil.
The guards won't let you into the city, the guards in question are clerics, and are using animated dead as foot soldiers. But other than using animated dead, aren't currently doing anything evil besides being in your way. (For all you know, the undead they are using were created as punishment for a crime) Probably evil to kill them if you don't have to.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Killing slavers is standard operating procedure for Andoran PCs. -The chaotic good faction.The word slavers seems entirely superfluous there, Andoran always seemed one of the most bloodthirsty and corrupt of the factions. At least Cheliax/Dark Archive are honest about what they are.
Yeah I'd describe the Andoran faction as neutral with a heavy leaning towards evil.
|
Killing slavers is standard operating procedure for Andoran PCs. -The chaotic good faction.The word slavers seems entirely superfluous there, Andoran always seemed one of the most bloodthirsty and corrupt of the factions. At least Cheliax/Dark Archive are honest about what they are.
Really I've never really encountered overly bloodthirsty characters from that faction. Granted their faction head is pretty crappy, but most of the players I've seen and my personal Andoran/Liberty Edge characters don't fall into that category.
Edit - Except a Bard played my area's VC. Just remembered he actually was told by a in character VC maybe he(the Bard with high CHA and good social skills) wouldn't be called for delicate/ social missions because he was too bloodthirsty(while my 7 CHA Dwarven Druid and the rest of the party were thanked for their efforts on behalf of the society.) Guess I just figured he was a bad seed.
|
You will find the line separating evil actions from not-quite evil ones is fuzzy. Expect table variation. In my experience the most common ruling in your situation is that if you immediately kill the fallen enemy it will merely be considered finishing them off. They could have fast healing or some other method of recovering for their wounds allowing them to come after you again. They did attack you after all, so killing them is usually a reasonable response to that.
However, if you stabilize them, tie them up, and then heal them to consciousness, presumably so you can question them, and thereafter kill them while they are helpless, most GMs will rule that as evil, especially if you torture them for the information.
The best thing to do is decide on your own character's morality concerning such things and question the GM how far they will let you go. At least then, you'll know what is likely to get you into trouble at that table.
|
|
Killing slavers is standard operating procedure for Andoran PCs. -The chaotic good faction.
Everyone assumes that it's 'the chaotic good faction' but I very much have a *neutral* Eagle Knight who is an Iroran cleric that is in Liberty's Edge and he also views himself as a libertarian patriot of Andoran.
If people aren't allowed to make their choices for themselves, then how are they expected to learn from their decisions?
At the same time, there are consequences for one's actions, on social, political, legal, and personal levels, and to attempt to avoid those consequences is assuredly NOT learning the lesson from the mistakes made.
In his very first expedition for the Society the party he was with was actually forced to make one of these above 'judgement calls' -- opponents allegedly {Redacted} and unrepentant about being {Redacted} forced the hand of the expedition with limited resources and knowledge of the situation to end them.
As a result of his finding the path of the Master of Masters, though, he now has a much more nuanced view, inasmuch as 'if you kill them *now* then it'll take them a *lot longer* to learn the lesson than if you can salvage them now'...
|
You are not likely to get a clear answer here...
To a great extent, the definition of "Good" and "Evil" is kind of subjective (this statement will have a number of people object - but for the most part it is true). And tends to be (at least partly) a personal view.
So - you will have to make that call, influenced by your judge, and the other players.
Me - personally - I would call killing the Cleric in question an evil act. But ... I wouldn't call the players on it if I was the table judge. If I was one of the players? I would argue with the other players that we should turn him in (alive) to some form of authority (if possible).
(Now to put a weird spin on this...) After all, "they're worth more alive"...
|
|
This gem came up in a scenario, mostly has fluff than as written, the players defeated without killing a pile of Ninja/Assasins with a really strict code of honour. The GM interpreted their code of honour, and the location they were set in, to make them like our hollywood trope of Feudal Japanese warriors, and so while the scenario didn't really say they would do this (or I don't believe it did, I wasn't the GM) in the RP interrogation that followed the combat, the Ninja's indicated that once freed they would commit suicide to remove the shame of failure from their family. So we were left with the dilemma, by freeing them we would enable their suicide. As we were off the scenario rails a little, we just moved past it, leaving them to the local law enforcement, but the Ninja's sure thought we would have been less evil to have just slain them outright...
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
If you have a concern for your character's aliment possibly changing, you can always ask your GM to note on your chronicle that you refused to help kill the helpless enemy.
I asked a GM to do that for me after the party wanted to kill a NE cleric that we (or I as a monk) had knocked out. I flatly refused to participate and included in my "report" back to the lodge what had happened.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might be a bit theoretically thin, but as a GM I'm fine with glossing over how the party gets rid of prisoners just to keep the main action on the rails. I have enough trouble finishing scenarios on time without worrying about this.
|
|
As others have indicated, it's a case by case thing, and many players have no qualms about having their PCs kill enemies.
For me, it depends on the PC.
My borderline evil sorceress will want revenge on anyone who attacks her, and my paladin of Iomedae is really gung ho about smiting evil doers, so they'll both kill most prisoners.
My cleric of Sarenrae and warpriest of Shelyn will try to redeem anyone (offer not valid for undead or outsiders of the evil subtype). In fact, that warpriest hates hurting people, so he focuses on combat maneuvers and non-lethal damage. Yes, I'm aware of the irony of a pacifist warpriest - playing against type is the whole point on that one.
My casting focused druid is also a pacifist, sticking to debuffs, control spells, and non-lethal damage, unless she gets really upset. Then the lightning comes down... literally. She gets Call Lightning as a domain spell. But she'd probably want to protect captives and turn them over to the authorities.
I have a couple of neutral PCs who usually don't care either way, so they'll let the rest of the party decide what to do with captives.
Then there's my inquisitor of Norgorber, who talked the rest of the party into capturing an undead enemy in yesterday's game instead of killing it. Not out of sympathy for it, but just to study. My guy is obsessed with discovering all the world's secrets, which is why he worships the god of secrets (and ignores the fact that Norgorber is also the god of murder, poison, and thievery). Even more ironically, this guy pretends to be a Pharasma worshiper, who is supposed to be destroying undead at every opportunity.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might be a bit theoretically thin, but as a GM I'm fine with glossing over how the party gets rid of prisoners just to keep the main action on the rails. I have enough trouble finishing scenarios on time without worrying about this.and it is quite possible that thru "glossing over how the party gets rid of prisoners" a lot of hard feelings and un-productive game time is avoided. (this is a good thing). It would mean that three (or more) players will assume that the party handled the "prisoner disposal" the way they each wanted too -
Player A: "We killed 'em dead, like they deserve. And I enjoyed it..."
Player B: "Turned the evil creatures in for a suitable reward. The gold got rolled into the award at the end of the game..."
Player C: "We enrolled them in the Sarenrae twelve-step program of redemption and restitution. So that they can become a useful member of society..."
and they all move on to their next game - happy to have resolved this issue "correctly".
I'm not really counting on that, though if it happens I don't mind.
It's more the case that in our area, there's some scruples about full-on murdering guards and such that are only doing their job. Also, prisoners might know something useful. But the side effect is that the party tends to end up with much more prisoners than typical scenarios seem to assume. I don't really want to get bogged down into how to get rid of them, so I'm fine with a no-consequences kick offstage for them in those circumstances.
Of course, if the scenario specifically says that no witnesses must escape, it becomes a different story. I'll give pointers to the players that they need to come to a decision on-screen then.
|
Hi,
first of i´m not an english nativ speaker so please forgive me my mistakes.
When i last played PFS (Level 1-4) our last encounter was with an human cleric. He was propably evil (none of us checked) because he had a zombie with him, chaneled negativ energie and was involved in slave trade.
When the fight was over he was unconscious (not dead). I wouled have had him stabilized, bound and hand over to the authority. But our thief killed him.
Later on that got me thinking, in PFS it is not allowed to play an evil character but is it allowed for a good or neutral character to kill an unconsious or helpless (sleeping) enemy?
I will define it a bit more and say a race an PFS player is allowed to play (without a boon).
I would say no because it is an evil act.
What would you say?
Greetings
Michael
Love to know what character he was running, but it doesn't matter too much.
Killing helpless/unconscious enemies is okay for neutral characters, especially in PFS. If they start killing helpless/unconscious non-enemies, then they've crossed a line. Most neutral characters should still be doing so with reasonable motives, not because they like killing or suffering.
Good characters should really be trying to avoid killing anyone at all, though Pathfinder will often present them with situations where killing really is the only way out of a situation.
The only grey area for Good characters is mercy killing, where life will likely be more painful than a swift death. This one is probably still neutral, but good characters may still find good motives for this one, from time to time.
Grook 'em in the dooker!
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing slavers is standard operating procedure for Andoran PCs. -The chaotic good faction.The word slavers seems entirely superfluous there, Andoran always seemed one of the most bloodthirsty and corrupt of the factions. At least Cheliax/Dark Archive are honest about what they are.
I feel this is a bit unfair. I've had players back when faction missions were an issue deliberate fail the Major's missions for one reason or another. The NG and CG players saying things like 'I'm here to liberate not be an assassin or pimp or (whatever)."
I've also had tables where five Andoran players point blank told the chellaixan player they were going to ruin his mission. (They all got an alignment warning from me when they did it).
Were Andoren/Liberty's Edge missions a bit shady. Heck yeah, but more often than not I saw more player action than mission shade the local perceptions of the faction.
My one Edge character is a former chellaixan slave and has a HUGE chip on his shoulder. Would he kill a chellaixan slave owner or anyone one involved with the slave trade. Absolutely. No quarter given. Would he do some of the shady faction missions that I have seen? He'd have told the Major to stick it.
|
|
It's a matter of pragmatism most of the time, as prior posters have mentioned. My Silver Crusade diplomat would love to enroll every random cutthroat the party defeats in Sarenrae's 12 Steps program; but he and his very burly and dangerous compatriots were sent to kill an evil wizard, not redeem the countryside, and taking time to set up college funds for henchmen somewhat distracts from that purpose.
Also it is a widely-believed fact that all Andorans are monsters.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville
|
It's a matter of pragmatism most of the time, as prior posters have mentioned. My Silver Crusade diplomat would love to enroll every random cutthroat the party defeats in Sarenrae's 12 Steps program; but he and his very burly and dangerous compatriots were sent to kill an evil wizard, not redeem the countryside, and taking time to set up college funds for henchmen somewhat distracts from that purpose.
Also it is a widely-believed fact that all Andorans are monsters.
Of trust me.. if you run into a Halfing of the Fiveboars clan out of Belkin, 3/5 are murders. Very selective murderers but still outright murders of Slavers, Chellaxians of certain noble families, Slave merchants/traders and quite possibly some very traitorous former Pathfinder faction leaders..
The other two are sorta murderers.. in that if they ever go into play the paladin would try to persuade the bad guys to turn themselves in and the Cleric/Wizard would try to leave them all tied up for the constables to deal with. (They are the 'black sheep' of the family)
But MOST of my Andorran natives have been pretty mellow folks who believe in action by law and trying not to leave bodies piled up in the streets just..because (Neither do the halflings, they can be discrete murderers). Of course most of my Andorran natives AREN"T members of Liberty's edge (one was Silver Crusade, two others Grand Lodge and one is The Exchange, he's looking to break the lumber consortium)
|
|
It's a matter of pragmatism most of the time, as prior posters have mentioned. My Silver Crusade diplomat would love to enroll every random cutthroat the party defeats in Sarenrae's 12 Steps program; but he and his very burly and dangerous compatriots were sent to kill an evil wizard, not redeem the countryside, and taking time to set up college funds for henchmen somewhat distracts from that purpose.
Also it is a widely-believed misconception that all Andorans are monsters.
Fixed that for you.