Some advice if you please. I'm in a campaign and playing a LG monk. My monk would have a code of honour to stand by and this has on a number of occasions been at odds with the rest of the party. I believe we are at a cross roads given recent events. I don't think I am being lawful stupid. I believe my compromises were reasonable. And most importantly I don't want to derail the campaign over this.
Incident 1) the party snuck up on a bunch of sleeping enemies and killed them in their sleep ... including the paladin. I felt this was dishonourable so I didn't take part in it and instead ended up fighting the bbeg who was not sleeping and rushed into the room at the sound of battle. I thought this was a fair compromise and didn't hamper the party's chance at success. The party thought otherwise because I gave up my surprise round attack. I was soundly berated after the fight because of it. Afterwards we discussed my code and slaying people in their sleep ... even though they were evil ... wasn't something I was prepared to do. I kind of figured it was water under the bridge.
Incident 2) A few sessions later we found ourselves rushing into a room full of evil cultists. We had surprise on them. This in and of itself my monk figured was fine. They weren't sleeping; just surprised. I quickly discovered that the cultists were incapable of defending themselves and the fight was going to be a slaughter. They had no weapons and no armour and no training. Essentially they were peasants. Rather than slay the weak, I chose to subdue them with non-lethal damage. The rest of the party simply chopped their cultists to bits. This in and of itself was problematic but I felt again that I had compromised well. But what happened next is where the real problem is. Just to spite the monk, our party rogue snuck in and killed those unconscious cultists when I rushed to the other side of the room to deal with some other creatures who joined the fight.
So the question is, how should I deal with this? I tried educating the party but that hasn't worked. I don't want to derail the campaign by meting out punishment on my own party members. I don't particularly want to leave the party and start a new character. But when I'm trying to work with the rest of them and find a compromise, some of them are clearly not interested and sabotaging my attempts.
Thoughts?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roll up something else, this is never going to work.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow.
Your in a party of Murder Hobos and your DM should be punishing the Paladin for slaughtering Sleeping/unconscious unarmed enemies.
You honestly are doing nothing wrong with fighting Honorably. The party refuses to let you play in an honorable manner. This honestly can be solved in a few ways.
First and Foremost talk to the DM. The paladin is out of line and would have fallen for taking part in both slaughterings.
After you speak with him about your concerns see what he thinks and then come back and explain to us about the current situation.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Fruian you were perfectly fine, I would start to consider your friends alignment though (especially the rogue and paladin)
Roll up something else, this is never going to work.
I almost have to agree here. Sounds like very different playstyles.
It is possible--possible--that you could bring in something from an external source such as the United States' IHL Guidelines that lists acceptable and unacceptable means of combat between countries, definition of civilians, what is and is appropriate in terms of tactics against the enemy, and discuss having your PC use that as a guideline.
If that source does not work, peruse the others and see if any speak to you and your table. In any case, an outside source may help your argument. Also, treating ooc issues as ooc issues--which it sounds like this is. You need to discuss playstyle and preferences. Alignment and character actions are just a symptom of that, not the source.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, I strongly disagree with the idea that you should try and convince your GM to make the paladin fall. That is just a really really bad idea.
However, you do need to talk with your group about several things.
One is, it is clear that you all need to come to common terms with what the various alignments mean. Obviously you and presumably at least some of them, including and most significantly the GM, have different views on what that entails. Clearly this needs to be clarified, and within that framework you need to have a character that can work well enough with the rest of the party. In general all of the PCs should at least have compatible alignments (based on everyone having a similar understanding of what the alignments are) with each other (my general rule is a couple steps, maybe one more for special circumstances LN and CG usually can manage)
Second, you need to talk to your group, particularly the players, and clarify what kind of game they want to play as far as teamwork. In most groups, having a character who goes around and is a jerk to another character (for example, killing someone they specifically wanted to keep alive, for no reason other that pissing off someone) isn't really acceptable. Pathfinder is best if it is a team game. Sure your characters can disagree on things, but by and large everyone should be supporting everyone else, not trying to thwart them. If the group wants a more PvP style (even if it is just screwing with each other and not killing) then you need to know that and can make your character choice (and whether or not you want to participate) accordingly.
This is not an in-game problem. This is an out-of-game problem whose effects are manifesting in the game. You need to resolve it based on that fact.
@squirrelyogre: I'd not say it is a play style issue. This particular group has gamed together for years and some of us significantly longer than that.
@Dave Justus: And I'm not going to slash the pally's tires. That is between him and the DM. He has been warned more than once. That just isn't my thing.
I don't want to be the party's moral hammer. I'm not interested in changing anyone else's character either. I just want to play my character. It has most definitely created a weird dynamic. My character's morality is being questioned every time I make a decision. It's kind of put me on the defensive and it's sucking the fun out of it honestly.
@ Finneous Frye,
I sympathise with your situation. The only resolution I can see is having an out of character conversation about whether they want to be cowardly murderhobos or play alignments properly. As it stands you can't play your alignment properly either. In character you are going along with evil actions for the sake of out of character group harmony. It is a ridiculous situation, which I don't see any in game resolution to.
If an OOC chat or rolling another character are not great options you could try something like: a stoic acceptance that you are not responsible for the actions of others. Frown in disapproval,but accept the trials and tribulations being foist upon you as a test of your inner fortitude as you undertake a greater quest than correcting one (or two) wayward souls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some advice if you please. I'm in a campaign and playing a LG monk. My monk would have a code of honour to stand by and this has on a number of occasions been at odds with the rest of the party. I believe we are at a cross roads given recent events. I don't think I am being lawful stupid. I believe my compromises were reasonable. And most importantly I don't want to derail the campaign over this.
Well, there's your problem!
Incident 1) the party snuck up on a bunch of sleeping enemies and killed them in their sleep ... including the paladin. I felt this was dishonourable so I didn't take part in it and instead ended up fighting the bbeg who was not sleeping and rushed into the room at the sound of battle. I thought this was a fair compromise and didn't hamper the party's chance at success. The party thought otherwise because I gave up my surprise round attack. I was soundly berated after the fight because of it. Afterwards we discussed my code and slaying people in their sleep ... even though they were evil ... wasn't something I was prepared to do. I kind of figured it was water under the bridge.
Remember that you are a warrior. The only reason that the enemy was at a disadvantage is because they put themselves at a disadvantage. Do not turn their poor planning into your disadvantage.
Incident 2) A few sessions later we found ourselves rushing into a room full of evil cultists. We had surprise on them. This in and of itself my monk figured was fine. They weren't sleeping; just surprised. I quickly discovered that the cultists were incapable of defending themselves and the fight was going to be a slaughter. They had no weapons and no armour and no training. Essentially they were peasants. Rather than slay the weak, I chose to subdue them with non-lethal damage. The rest of the party simply chopped their cultists to bits. This in and of itself was problematic but I felt again that I had compromised well. But what happened next is where the real problem is. Just to spite the monk, our party rogue snuck in and killed those unconscious cultists when I rushed to the other side of the room to deal with some other creatures who joined the fight.
If they surrendered, then your group should have given them quarter. If they didn't, then the wellbeing of your enemy is not your concern. If you wanted to care for the weak, you should have started an orphanage.
An unconscious enemy is a simple spell away from being a combatant enemy.
So the question is, how should I deal with this? I tried educating the party...
Most warriors aren't willing to study poor tactics.
This is not the group of players and GM you want to be with if a fire, flood, or terrorist attack breaks out IRL -- escape this group ASAP.
@ Kitty Catoblepas
Was that intended to be tongue in cheek?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You honestly are doing nothing wrong with fighting Honorably.
When your playstyle is disruptive to the rest of the group and making the game less enjoyable for everyone else I'd argue that's kind of wrong.
Then turning around and trying to force your playstyle even harder by trying to convince the GM to punish other players for not playing like you is the subject of like half the posts in your typical problem player/problem GM horror story thread.
He had a code of conduct.
He held very tightly to it.
And then some of the 'more advanced' (twink) characters decided to murder truly helpless individuals and then, salt in the wound, attempt a cover-up because 'they didn't like how the GM railroaded them'.
My character had gathered evidence to indict all the individuals on 'war crimes' and did due diligence in making the report.
And much like happens in some cases with modern law enforcement, the military, and other things, suddenly it was 'all swept under the rug' and the character was being charged with sedition, treason, and failure to follow orders.
There was no 'happy ending' to that scenario.
It took an appeal to the combined campaign leadership to mitigate that last bit, and that was also the hint to stop playing that campaign, for the rot had truly reached epic proportions.
One will have to make the choices one will.
Recommendation: Consider one's mental health before investing one's self in this campaign any further.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As it is your playstyle that is 'disruptive' to everyone else, I'd say that you should change. Your monk could just walk away from the group and you could roll up a character more in line with the group. You, the player, could depart until you find another group more to your liking or a new campaign starts with more like-minded characters.
But I think you should seize the opportunity to roleplay your character's descent from Lawful GOOD, through Lawful NEUTRAL, into Lawful EVIL.
The other players at the table will probably really enjoy the fact that you are "finally pulling your head out of your oss and getting with the program."
At least until you finally swing all the way over to evil and your personal code demands your loyalty to your monastic order over that of the party and you screw them over at the final fight, looting their corpses and ending with, "Hey, isn't this what you guys wanted out of me all along?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As it is your playstyle that is 'disruptive' to everyone else, I'd say that you should change. Your monk could just walk away from the group and you could roll up a character more in line with the group. You, the player, could depart until you find another group more to your liking or a new campaign starts with more like-minded characters.
But I think you should seize the opportunity to roleplay your character's descent from Lawful GOOD, through Lawful NEUTRAL, into Lawful EVIL.
The other players at the table will probably really enjoy the fact that you are "finally pulling your head out of your oss and getting with the program."
At least until you finally swing all the way over to evil and your personal code demands your loyalty to your monastic order over that of the party and you screw them over at the final fight, looting their corpses and ending with, "Hey, isn't this what you guys wanted out of me all along?"
That sounds like fun.
You would need the blessing of the GM though, sounds like he is not happy with how the paladin of the group has been behaving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **One will have to make the choices one will.
Recommendation: Consider one's mental health before investing one's self in this campaign any further.
This is not the group of players and GM you want to be with if a fire, flood, or terrorist attack breaks out IRL -- escape this group ASAP.
But maybe it is the PLAYERS that are being evil, and not just the player characters.
...Why does everyone in these threads automatically assume "The other players aren't abiding by an LG code/disagree with OP? They must be horrible untrustworthy sociopaths in real life!"?
Jesus people, it's just a game. Chill the f@~~ out.
|
Seems that the Paladin having already fallen in behavior if not crunch, the haters of shining knight LG have decided to make your Monk fall
Better check with them (Rogue player comes to mind) why their characters act this way and what the player thinks would be the appropriate answer from your Monk. You just might be pleasantly surprised ;-)
Seems to me that your group isn't acting plain evil (definitely not murderhobos) but more in a tactical/efficient way. I could really see some LN character acting this way.
The only people they murdered yet were evil.
Killing helpless people may not be very honorable but it is an efficient way to take down enemies. And nothing tells us that your party had the resources to imprison the cultists and that these cultists would not represent a possible issue in the future.
If i was playing this kind of "things need to be done" character, i would indeed be upset that you rush into the bbeg room alone without commiting to the plan. You don't have to educate other party members here, they just see the world in a different way...
I would suggest roleplaying a nice descent into evil as Mykull suggested. Or talk to them about how this is a waste of ressources and how these enemies could be put to good use.
Your monk may be LG, he can be a diplomat too and find arguments that can make the party change its mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's hard to justify killing helpless people, and prisoners that surrender to you. But it is not impossible that that party's actions are not unforgivable, even if not justifiable.
There were no prisoners who surrendered in any of the OP's scenarios. There were enemies who were unconscious.
Even then, Paizo's material has shown that this is not only consistent with a lawful good alignment but explicitly consistent with the paladin's code of conduct.
Look at Torag's Paladin Code: "Against my people's enemy I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them and scatter theirs families."
Look at Sarenrae's Paladin Code: "The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not."
|
|
When I started on the Paladin road after 9 levels as a TN Ranger, my fellow PCs were surprised that I stopped doing my shoot first think later if at all routine
They were at least as surprised when I closed the door behind them to better protect their escape from a dreadful foe that I had the best chance of surviving.
Not something my old self would have done. His previous remarkable feats included kicking purring cats and scaring kids into fleeing, thereby provoking AoOs he did not wish on himself
Some of the greatest fun in RPG comes from actually following your PC's chosen morality
@ Kitty Catoblepas
Was that intended to be tongue in cheek?
Yeah. I should have put up tags, eh?
It was my take on "How a Pathfinder Fighter would respond to this post."
In other words, I don't expect that pushing his Code of Honor would go over very well.
Yeah by "educating" I meant only that I explained clearly to them what I was willing and/or not willing to do. I didn't mean the preachy "you should be like me because my way is superior" kind of educating. I was trying to find a compromising path through this messy situation whereby I don't threaten party safety, the fun of others, and my own character's background and principals. It has resulted in repetitive attempts to undermine what I was trying to do and then chastising me ooc after several encounters.
Wow.
Your in a party of Murder Hobos and your DM should be punishing the Paladin for slaughtering Sleeping/unconscious unarmed enemies.You honestly are doing nothing wrong with fighting Honorably. The party refuses to let you play in an honorable manner. This honestly can be solved in a few ways.
First and Foremost talk to the DM. The paladin is out of line and would have fallen for taking part in both slaughterings.
After you speak with him about your concerns see what he thinks and then come back and explain to us about the current situation.
Killing evil scum isn't an evil act, most gods wouldn't punish a paladin for that, and some gods (Torag for example) practically demand it. "Good" doesn't mean "Nice".
Also, what the Rogue did behind everyone else's back shouldn't reflect on the paladin at all. Now, if the paladin had promised mercy and then slaughtered everyone, that's a different story. But "no quarter asked or given" to evil people/creatures is not an evil act.
Personally, I don't think this is a case of a particular person "playing wrong", this is simply a case of different playing styles.
As is usually the case in these scenarios, I'd like to hear from someone else in the party. This particular scenario sounds incredibly snowflakey, and I mean no offense there, truly. Either something is being left out(which may or may not be ops fault), or there was a conversation that should have been had pre game one conversation that simply was not had.
** spoiler omitted **One will have to make the choices one will.
Recommendation: Consider one's mental health before investing one's self in this campaign any further.
...Why does everyone in these threads automatically assume "The other players aren't abiding by an LG code/disagree with OP? They must be horrible untrustworthy sociopaths in real life!"?
Jesus people, it's just a game. Chill the f@&@ out.
I made no such presumption.
The spoiler related an anecdotal experience I had in play with a given campaign.
My exact words are valid. The suggestion/recommendation, likewise.
There was no assumption in O/P's situation that it was identical.
Please stop attempting to ascribe morality to a personality conflict issue, and please stop lumping ME in with that.
Thank you.
Killing evil scum isn't an evil act, most gods wouldn't punish a paladin for that, and some gods (Torag for example) practically demand it. "Good" doesn't mean "Nice".
Murdering helpless/unarmed people is evil. Period.
It does not matter what their alignment is, what demon lord they serve, or who they killed and ate last week.
No, good does not mean nice. You don't have to be particularly polite or gentle while handing your prisoners over to the authorities. It does mean you don't act like the evildoers you just murdered.
Please stop attempting to ascribe morality to a personality conflict issue
This is funny, because that's exactly what I've been trying to get across. And yet when I point out that this is what people are doing, they get mad at me.
Seriously, read over those statements I quoted again and really think about what you, Scott, and (especially) Arcane wrote.
You suggested that staying with this group is hazardous for the person's mental health. Because of playstyle differences in a game.
Scott implied that there's a possibility that these random people he's never met might be evil. Because of playstyle differences in a game.
And Arcane implied that everyone else he's playing with are likely to abandon him or fight each other in any sort of crisis. Because of playstyle differences in a game.
Really think about that. This person has a very simple problem. The other players at the table don't want to play the same way he does. That's it. That is ALL YOU KNOW.
Casting aspersions on their morality and competency over this is...I really don't know how to describe it. Why would anyone do this?
Why is this so common in these alignment threads?
On a re-read, maybe that's not what you meant, it was supposed to be a lighthearted "Haha, these people are going to drive you nuts with their shenanigans" statement, but in the greater context of this thread, and every nearly identical thread like it that came before, you can see why it would come across as needlessly hostile to people you've never met, never will meet, and only know about secondhand from a person who just says their characters IN A GAME don't have moral codes that mesh.
Who knows, maybe a bad time to bring it up. Should have waited until, inevitably, this thread has 20 pages and there's a full on flamewar over whether killing sleeping enemies is evil, and what it says about your personal moral code if you think it's not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's hard to justify killing helpless people, and prisoners that surrender to you. But it is not impossible that that party's actions are not unforgivable, even if not justifiable.There were no prisoners who surrendered in any of the OP's scenarios. There were enemies who were unconscious.
Even then, Paizo's material has shown that this is not only consistent with a lawful good alignment but explicitly consistent with the paladin's code of conduct.
Look at Torag's Paladin Code: "Against my people's enemy I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them and scatter theirs families."
Look at Sarenrae's Paladin Code: "The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not."
I agree with Snowlilly and disagree with Torag and Srenrae: killing helpless people is a bad thing to, but I have already said that it is potentially forgivable. You and I would be just aruguing about matters of degrees on a case-by-case basis.
I think the OP may well be well-bothered by his party's killing helpless people, even helpless evil people. I wasn't there, so in giving him advice, I want to consider all possibilities.
I have the slightest feeling Torag and Saranrae are regarded as more credible sources... :p
Well, alignment can't really be gauged well. I mean, who ever stopped for their first encounter and tried to negotiate with the goblins? Well, I did. I cast Charm Person and then the Barbarian, made them all into... jelly, but, oh well.
Killing evil scum isn't an evil act, most gods wouldn't punish a paladin for that, and some gods (Torag for example) practically demand it. "Good" doesn't mean "Nice".Murdering helpless/unarmed people is evil. Period.
It does not matter what their alignment is, what demon lord they serve, or who they killed and ate last week.
No, good does not mean nice. You don't have to be particularly polite or gentle while handing your prisoners over to the authorities. It does mean you don't act like the evildoers you just murdered.
I understand that's your opinion, and in real life I totally agree with you. What I'm saying is that in the game setting some of the gods that have paladins don't seem to agree with that, based on how their paladin codes are written. So it's not as black and white an issue in the game world as one might think.
I understand that's your opinion, and in real life I totally agree with you. What I'm saying is that in the game setting some of the gods that have paladins don't seem to agree with that, based on how their paladin codes are written. So it's not as black and white an issue in the game world as one might think.
Killing evil scum isn't an evil act, most gods wouldn't punish a paladin for that, and some gods (Torag for example) practically demand it. "Good" doesn't mean "Nice".Murdering helpless/unarmed people is evil. Period.
It does not matter what their alignment is, what demon lord they serve, or who they killed and ate last week.
No, good does not mean nice. You don't have to be particularly polite or gentle while handing your prisoners over to the authorities. It does mean you don't act like the evildoers you just murdered.
I find it helps to think of an individual as a nation state when it comes to alignment matters. Is it murder for a nation state to kill helpless/unarmed enemies of the state? Of course not, because murder is a legal term for unlawful killings. Is it Evil for a nation state to kill helpless/unarmed enemies? Maybe. Is it Good for a nation state to kill helpless/unarmed enemies? Sometimes. The idea that a nation state must wait for it's enemies to arm themselves or pose a threat before killing them is a strange stance to take. You don't think drones strikes are only carried out on people who are awake and armed do you?
The major problem with alignment threads is that people forget a Good person can do Evil things and still be Good. Much in the same way doing Good things doesn't make an Evil person suddenly not Evil. Remember, killing your child's mother with the intention to commit genocide is not sufficient to change a good character's alignment in the right circumstances.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do have to wonder if the tone of this thread would be nearly the same if the OP was a CE character encountering moral dilemma with his flowers and sunshine good party members.
Couple of things worth mentioning here ...
Your code, as represented by you, would go directly against a couple of Pathfinder's Paladin codes in many situations.
I am not a paladin. I am a monk as clearly stated more than once.
You aren't wanting 'compromise' ... you are wanting them to follow YOUR code, instead of theirs. That's not compromise. Compromise would be you accepting they will do things you won't like. And you will do things they won't like, but you will both keep doing them, because that's just how you are.
Uh I never berated them on how they do business. I just ask that they respect how I do mine. That is not happening. I'm perfectly willing to work with them. Incidentally, I am not alone on my side of the quandry. Two others feel the same way I do.
As others have said, your prohibition that killing sleeping enemies is more about your code of honour than it is your alignment (yes, your code is an LG one, but it's not the only way to play LG) -- of course, that very much depends on who/what the sleeping things are, as well. A sleeping peasant army that's been taken in by a warlord (possibly pressed) is not the same as a roving band of hill giants or bugbears.
Now, I think your character saying, "I cannot do that" is a perfectly valid RP response, and your willingness to distract the boss while they did it showed a good amount of compromise. If I were playing a good-aligned character, I'd likely respect your character's unwillingness to kill the sleeping foes -- though I'd think your unwillingness to strike from surprise against the boss was daft -- but, hey, codes of honour are generally restrictive.
In a healthy party, there would be a discussion after the fact, maybe some tension, and generally, it *would* be water under the bridge... the fact that it wasn't makes me also think this is more a matter of play style than anything else.
In the second case, you choosing to be merciful and knocking out your opponents was, again, a decision that makes sense based on your own code of conduct -- and, really, your monk should have realized that he was in a somewhat different position than the others that allowed him to do so (most characters don't have a lot of non-lethal options, at least not without sacrificing a whole lot of effectiveness, which isn't something you want to do when being swarmed with 'helpless' foes -- especially given how any clever villain could be hiding among the 'helpless'. Where the problem comes is the rogue murdering the guys you subdued.
Looking at it in character, your monk would see that as murder, which is evil, and either try to apprehend or stop the rogue -- or, at the very least, refuse to associate with him -- and I can't see a way around that.
Stepping out of character, your description very much makes it sound as though it was done out of spite -- of course, that may be because of your reaction more than his intent -- it could just be him playing his nasty thief IC -- but either way, you're at an impasse in terms of party cohesion.
And, really, allow me to sympathize -- I've been in similar situations myself in the past, and literally had to roll up another character, because there was no way that the high-minded, swashbuckling "hero" type would be able to associate with at least 2 other party members... However, as much as the new character fit in more, it was still a problem of playstyle and the type of game I wanted vs. what they wanted -- I played another 4 months with them and was miserable the whole time (so much so I was actually relieved when the party was TPKed later)... which is when I realized that life is way too short (and gaming time way to precious) to waste time not having fun.