So at the moment my parties alignments are spread all over with the current issue being between a CG and LE(now NE).
Synopsis:
BBEG Half-Orc Warchief has sent his stronger minions and their minions after the party who are currently trying to depose him, they arrive at the tavern the party attacks and is attacked.
The LE is the most uncharismatic inquisitor who has a penchant for doing whatever it takes for his mission.
The CG is a rogue on a sudden and surprising mission to aid a god in stopping Orcus from destroying his home and the god. He's also a Caydenite and has actually met Cayden in celebration of his good deeds and is now actually arranging it so that all the slaves in this city will be freed by the next leader (a friendly npc). That said this happened:
Scenario:
During this fight a lot goes down and it is a tough fight but besides a few hp gone and 1 large Friendly Fire amount of damage the fight goes well. The Druid does lose her bear during the fight and is heartbroken but they kill that orc as he tries to escape.
During the fight though mid way through when things aren't looking good one orc surrenders and for 3 whole combat rounds does nothing in an attempt to surrender being on 1/30hp. He actually didn't manage to do any damage to anyone during the fight as well.
During the last round the LE character knowing the orc surrendered and wasn't giving any useful info in the moments he had to grovel was shot. The CG comes over and heals the orc stabilizing him and gets him to talk a bit more about who they are and why they attacked them. He gets a lot of info they didn't know but the LE comes over and says "Well if that's all he's got I'm going to just kill him."
To my surprise even though they're constantly at each other's throats about their beliefs the CG player agrees saying "You better give us something else or I can't see a reason to stop him." The orc starts crying and begging but is quickly and ruthlessly put down by the LE.
My Opinion:
Personally I think allowing that and not trying to even defend him or take him prisoner was an evil act and would probably be against his gods ideals. Should I arrange a punishment for this because so far the character has preached all sorts of stuff about why being good is the right thing... yet that happened.
Obviously it wouldn't be severe or anything but there are plenty of other actions that have built up but they were all small stupid things that didn't warrant any punishment but were worth noting. This however felt very evil and cruel.
Addendum
Yeah let me clarify something real quick. They were currently IN said Warchief's settlement, they were working against him to overthrow him and had a replacement they were working with.
The party is non-human with a Goblin(LN) and a half-orc(LN) as well. The LE Inquisitor is Duergar and the CG Rogue is Kitsune.
The people killed/they fought were members of the Warchief's military, the settlement was going to be taken over by a different Half-Orc.
The Tavern was also their base of operations as it were... I mean that's usually where it is in these types of games.
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
http://archivesofnethys.com/DeityDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Torag
This is part of the code followed by the LG paladins of Torag. Make of it what you will.
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.http://archivesofnethys.com/DeityDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Torag
This is part of the code followed by the LG paladins of Torag. Make of it what you will.
Well he's neither a worshipper of Torag nor LG, his god is about freedom and sticking up for the underdog.
I do get that whole idea but it's not fitting of his character, he's kinda classic robin hood.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they're pitted against each other someone has to concede. Just leave it as is, don't make new conflict. Good alignments aren't always pure saints. Every hero has a regret.
Still, I'd call that evil. Dwarves in Golarion seem to get a free pass on matters of alignment (look up 'LN' Dranngvit some time) but by the way everyone else acts that was evil as.
How much evil it takes for an alignment shift is entirely up to your group and game though.
This is very context dependent... after all what were the options if the group is running in what amounts to be enemy territory?
The orc after all is part of the group that the party was fighting, and pretty much looks like it surrendered merely to save it's own skin and maraud someone else the next day.
If Cayden has been putting up with the character asssociating with this Inquisitor, now is not the time to go niggly on him not going out on limb for a creature that's likely an enslaver itself.
|
Killing an enemy as punishment for their crimes is not Evil. Lying to them and not giving them a fair trial first are both probably Chaotic, but not Evil.
So, it really comes down to whether the CG guy had good reason to believe that this orc had committed crimes worthy of execution. If he did, this seems like a Neutral act, more or less. If not, it's probably slightly Evil.
The Good thing to do would probably have been to show mercy and try and redeem the orc.
However, and here's the thing, none of these are remotely enough to change the character in question's Alignment. Good people aren't required to always be Good every second of every day. They can commit a variety of Neutral acts and even an occasional minor Evil one and retain their current Alignment if the vast majority of their actions remain Good.
Some exceptionally awful acts may be so vile as to immediately make you Evil...but this sure isn't one of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Curiously, this is a matter that's come up for me before, since one person in my playgroup loves to promise to spare enemy lives in exchange for their surrender, and then kill them the moment they cease to dispense useful information.
That said, I am firmly in agreement that an enemy that has ceased to be a threat and is actively pleading for its life is, at that point, helpless. To kill it is very significantly an evil act (also a chaotic one, if you accepted the surrender). The rogue should have at least, if not actively stop the inquisitor, at least not agree with him.
Obviously, what one could do with the orc is limited. Depending on your distance from any settlement, and depending on if the orc or his clan are in violation of any regional laws. According to your example, this occurred in a tavern within city limits, so there was a legal authority to which you could turn the orc over to, depending on how Cayden views incarceration. This would be the lawful option.
Other options include taking the orc as having had a change of heart and letting him live, possibly as an ally (the good action, though taking his weapons is a sensible precaution), or executing him for reasons outside his control (the evil action, and the one the party took).
Some of the malice of the act would have been mitigated if the party took the time to explain to the orc that for various reasons, they could not allow him to live, and give him a chance to make peace with his god before giving him a mercy killing.
But as is, what the rogue did was cold and merciless, and I cannot expect Cayden to be pleased.
Yeah let me clarify something real quick. They were currently IN said Warchief's settlement, they were working against him to overthrow him and had a replacement they were working with.
The party is non-human with a Goblin(LN) and a half-orc(LN) as well. The LE Inquisitor is Duergar and the CG Rogue is Kitsune.
The people killed/they fought were members of the Warchief's military, the settlement was going to be taken over by a different Half-Orc.
The Tavern was also their base of operations as it were... I mean that's usually where it is in these types of games.
Thanks for all the responses btw.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they're pitted against each other someone has to concede. Just leave it as is, don't make new conflict. Good alignments aren't always pure saints. Every hero has a regret.
QFT
Don't play "Alignment gotcha." Players have a much better idea about alignment than you ever will.
I'm of the opinion that killing a surrendered enemy isn't inherently evil, depending on who/what the enemy is/did. In this scenario, I'd call that a solid neutral.
I believe that it IS however a heavily chaotic act to kill someone who has surrendered, so if anyone should be having repercussions from that, it should be the LE. That said, I don't think this sounds like an important enough event for repercussions at all.
|
Why is executing enemies evil? I don't for one second think that the orc is truly repentant of all the evil he's done. He just wanted to save his own skin.
Remember - there is no modern justice system in a fantasy game, and from what you said the orcs were the aggressors.
Now - it certainly wasn't a good act. But lying to him was a chaotic act - not an evil one. (And you didn't actually say that he even lied.)
They didn't torture the orc (which would have been very evil). They asked questions, threatened, and then executed him.
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.http://archivesofnethys.com/DeityDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Torag
This is part of the code followed by the LG paladins of Torag. Make of it what you will.
Well he's neither a worshipper of Torag nor LG, his god is about freedom and sticking up for the underdog.
I do get that whole idea but it's not fitting of his character, he's kinda classic robin hood.
It does show the kind of action that is allowed by LG though. So if a paladin can execute a prisoner and maintain his code it should not be an issue for anyone else.
Just kill 'em and see what your GM does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how to adjudicate 100% of alignment questions:
"From your character's perspective, given what they believe and value, how would they defend or explain their actions."
Any sort of reasonable in character explanation that's consistent with their past actions and stated beliefs is fine, and nobody's alignment is a problem.
So when pressed with "why did you kill that guy?" the good character can say "we're in the middle of nowhere and he was pretty badly hurt. We weren't about to let him go free because of the stuff he's done, but we couldn't spare the medical care and we can't really haul a prisoner deeper into the wastes with us, so we decided to give him a death more merciful than tying him to a tree and letting him die from an infection", whereas the evil character can give an explanation like "MY DARK LORD REQUIRES THE SOULS OF THE WICKED!" and both will be consistent with their alignments.
Alignment is a tool to help people RP their own characters, it's not a thing for the GM to play Gotcha with. Only when a character literally cannot give a justification for their actions within the context of their beliefs should you suggest they may be moving to a new alignment. If you merely get characters to think about ethics, you are doing alignment correctly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's more fun if you get to dictate your character's personality and actions. That's like the only thing players can control.
|
|
Turn the tables around. If some people broke into your home, killed your community leader and all your co-workers, then said if you have nothing to give them then they will kill you as well after you had already surrendered and tried to work with them, would it be evil? Remember, you are not the leader or even decision maker of what your boss had been doing. You're just some guy that has to do what they are told to do if they want to eat.
They killed this guy for reasons of greed. Simple as that. The orc didn't give them enough of what they wanted. They demanded more. Then killed him for the reason of not forking over stuff he probably didn't even have.
Except per the OP - that's not what happened at all.
The CG comes over and heals the orc stabilizing him and gets him to talk a bit more about who they are and why they attacked them.
Therefore it was the orcs who attacked the PCs and your entire point is moot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First thing I'd do is talk to the player about it. Just a simple "hey, your character said it was just that he didn't have any more information so may as well kill him, was there anything more to that?"
I can see there being other factors at play here, like maybe the rogue was just trying to scare him into cooperating and didn't actually sincerely support killing him. After all, it sounds like the inquisitor may not have given him much time to do anything after that, and arguing with a party member after the fact could well seem pointless.
Or, for instance, I'd be concerned about it being grounds for alignment-based penalty *if* I considered it representative of the character's standard modus operandi. If it was, in character, a particular slip while angry, I'd let that slide and be glad the player was RPing stuff like that.
If it's just the character in question seeing nothing wrong with killing defeated enemies begging for mercy, then yeah, that's a bit evil, and while I wouldn't do anything severe as punishment, something minor and/or strictly RP-based to indicate his god's disapproval seems very fitting imo.
(I don't think killing defeated enemies is automatically evil, no. Just when it's shrugged off as whatever, no big deal, he probably deserved it anyway, that's the questionable part.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have him meet a priest of Cayden. Have the priest ask how things have been, sort of a very casual confessional. That gives an in character way to ask about motives, and an opportunity to advise.
No punishment, but a gentle nudge to say "You can do better than that."
|
|
Charon, the OP said they were in the War-chief's settlement and they had been actively been trying to overthrow him. Should the war-chief have just said "sure, whatever." and ignored it? Since it is his settlement, does that not mean he has the authority to have his forces police it? Sure the chief is probably evil, but the little guy just following orders in his own home from the community leader? Come on now. You really think he deserved that based on what evidence, or is it guilty by association? Or is it a matter of anyone that doesn't give the party what the want, regardless on if they have it, deserves to die?
You aren't saying anything that contradicts my point.
The orc was a combatant taking orders from an evil orc warchief who attacked them - he was not an innocent bystander as your previous posts implied.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are infinite variations and interpretations of each alignment. You could probably justify an action for every alignment. It's a lot easier and more fun if the players get to use their own interpretation, not a label the GM slaps on their characters.
So at the moment my parties alignments are spread all over with the current issue being between a CG and LE(now NE).
Synopsis:
BBEG Half-Orc Warchief has sent his stronger minions and their minions after the party who are currently trying to depose him, they arrive at the tavern the party attacks and is attacked.
The LE is the most uncharismatic inquisitor who has a penchant for doing whatever it takes for his mission.
The CG is a rogue on a sudden and surprising mission to aid a god in stopping Orcus from destroying his home and the god. He's also a Caydenite and has actually met Cayden in celebration of his good deeds and is now actually arranging it so that all the slaves in this city will be freed by the next leader (a friendly npc). That said this happened:Scenario:
During this fight a lot goes down and it is a tough fight but besides a few hp gone and 1 large Friendly Fire amount of damage the fight goes well. The Druid does lose her bear during the fight and is heartbroken but they kill that orc as he tries to escape.
During the fight though mid way through when things aren't looking good one orc surrenders and for 3 whole combat rounds does nothing in an attempt to surrender being on 1/30hp. He actually didn't manage to do any damage to anyone during the fight as well.
During the last round the LE character knowing the orc surrendered and wasn't giving any useful info in the moments he had to grovel was shot. The CG comes over and heals the orc stabilizing him and gets him to talk a bit more about who they are and why they attacked them. He gets a lot of info they didn't know but the LE comes over and says "Well if that's all he's got I'm going to just kill him."
To my surprise even though they're constantly at each other's throats about their beliefs the CG player agrees saying "You better give us something else or I can't see a reason to stop him." The orc starts crying and begging but is quickly and ruthlessly put down by the LE.My Opinion:
Personally I think...
This orc is a servant of the BBEG, right? Well, said orc had probably murdered plenty in his life, even if this was a bad fight for him. if the BBEG is a slaver, then it's pretty sure that this orc has committed plenty of abuses. And even if he hasn't, even if this orc is some saintly exception, the CG character DOES NOT KNOW THIS. He sees a mass murderer who just got his butt kicked very suddenly blubbering for his life... to do what? probably run off and do more of the same, right?
As far as your rogue knows, ending the life of this orc goes a long way towards helping other people, even if the orc has big ol' puppy eyes. And if this is during an assault on the BBEG's encampment, what are they going to do with a prisoner?
Killing a surrendered opponent certainly isn't NICE, but you're in the middle of a war and said opponent, given the opportunity, is going to run off and hurt a bunch more people. Absent some sort of way of knowing very certainly that this villain had very suddenly turned over a new leaf for-real-and-true, or that this is in fact the orcish Drizzt, your rogue did nothing evil or lawful.
Even if he had, one act isn't going to impact his alignment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So at the moment my parties alignments are spread all over with the current issue being between a CG and LE(now NE).
There's your problem. That should never have been allowed without a VERY good reason.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the root of your problem....
~quote
The orc starts crying and begging but is quickly and ruthlessly put down by the LE.
orc starts crying and begging
starts crying and begging
What the hell is wrong with your DM's orcs?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So at the moment my parties alignments are spread all over with the current issue being between a CG and LE(now NE).
That's your mistake right there. NO EVILS! is a standard rule, and even if you decide on a fun change of paces All evil campaign, you shouldnt be mixing CG with LE.
No, no "punishment" for the CG player.
And having one orc surrender was something YOU should have know would cause a issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe this is known as the prisoner dilemma.
Magehunter, players can play how they want but have you heard the phrase "If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck..?" Because I have seen a player have their alignment as LG and try to justify things like walking through a prison and killing every child born in said prison, because they would continue a criminal's bloodline, then claim the player's interpretation of what is good or evil is always right because it is their character. There is a point where you have to tell the player "You can do what you like but no, you're wrong. That was a monstrously evil thing you did. I will not let you keep "good" on your sheet." I had a CN druid that took prisoners, who were just fishermen the party plundered in a pirate game and had surrendered, and then cut them up and threw them to sharks. He argued he was feeding them to "nature" and how could that be a bad thing, and it should not impact his alignment.
In this case, yeah it wouldn't warrant a change really but it gets to me when I hear that a player gets to dictate what an alignment actually means and a DM is wrong to ever change it to match how they are actually acting. Otherwise, every single horrible villain is good aligned because they are all the hero to their own story and never see themselves as the bad guy.
I had a character fall to evil and I felt it was justified. My dwarf viciously tortured a prisoner to X-Rated levels and fell from CN to CE, and I said that was totally fair. The reason was to find out more about assassins in the city he was actually on the council for and prepare for invasion from outside forces. He had good intentions but what my dwarf did was still despicable and it warranted the alignment hit.
Well, when a Player has his character do something like that, the best thing is to sit down with the player, talk to him like an adult and tell him that just not the kind of game you want to run.
That is interesting because IRL, torture doesnt work. Only in games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So at the moment my parties alignments are spread all over with the current issue being between a CG and LE(now NE).
That's your mistake right there. NO EVILS! is a standard rule, and even if you decide on a fun change of paces All evil campaign, you shouldnt be mixing CG with LE.
No, no "punishment" for the CG player.
And having one orc surrender was something YOU should have know would cause a issue.
Or as I suspect, that's exactly what you intended.
Three Lawful characters, perhaps a vote? Or tying him up to bring back to the authorities so the party doesn't have to bother with figuring out what his punishment should be?
|
|
That is interesting because IRL, torture doesnt work. Only in games.
Well - it doesn't work to get reliable information.
Often historically that wasn't the real point. It was to get a confession in order to justify the actions of the torturer and/or intimidate anyone else. With that goal in mind, it worked pretty well.
But no, I agree, it doesn't work well to get reliable/complex info as they just start making stuff up to appease the torturer. (I did read an article which said it might work for quickly provable stuff - not that that would justify the torture anyway.)
From all the info given, I can't see allowing the orc to be killed as an evil act. If he was one of the BBEG's generals, he could have easily enough been in the line of succession, and thus would be a necessary kill to ensure your "candidate" is taken over. In addition, if allowed to live, the guy would have either been jailed, exiled, or forced to work under the new leader, and in all cases would have the chance to conspire to take him down. The only factor toward his execution being an act of evil is that he was surrendering and gave up info (and even if he didn't do any damage, I assume he at the least attempted to), and assuming he'd be working under the new leader, being able to cajole so much information out of him would make him untrustworthy. It was certainly a ruthless move, but I could easily see it justifiable as "the ends justify the means" in this situation, and honestly is ultimately the smarter move IMO, and in fact a very CG thing to do.
I'll admit there may have been factors that, if the CG had known of them, would make allowing this death an evil act. Perhaps the orc in question was a slave himself, only fighting because of some threat against himself or loved ones. However, there's no indication the CG would have known of these factors at the time. While I'd say he should feel some remorse for allowing it to occur if some extenuating circumstance comes to light, it's not gonna be anything that'll budge his alignment.
I don't think it's a matter of killing the orc = evil, not killing the orc = good. The reason I'd deem it evil isn't because of the outcome, it's because of how the rogue claimed to be looking at the situation.
"Hey, why were you personally trying to kill us?" "I dunno, 'cause the boss said to." "Sorry, but we can't trust that you won't do it again and we can't afford to watch out for prisoners. Want a few minutes to pray or anything?" Not really so impractical, if you ask me. "May as well kill him if he's not useful" is where the evil comes in.
Here is the root of your problem....
~quote
The orc starts crying and begging but is quickly and ruthlessly put down by the LE.
orc starts crying and begging
starts crying and beggingWhat the hell is wrong with your DM's orcs?
Orcs are specifically described in the bestiary as cowardly and apt to surrender if losing. Besides, orcish society seems very likely to encourage a pecking order based on strength - and therefore at least some level of submission to stronger enemies. This is also in line with LoTR orcs, as I recall, if not Warcraft orcs. So no, I don't think it's a problem, at least for mooks.
The way I read the OP, they were asking about "punishment" -- in fact, divine punishment by a deity who had directly met the character -- not necessarily a full alignment shift.
[Cayden Cailean] often shows his approval through the discovery of a fresh bottle of wine, but in cases where a mortal has instead drawn his ire, such found bottles invariably taste of vinegar or raw sewage.
Here's your means of punishment. I hope the character RPs drinking in that tavern that's their base. Have strangers offer him drinks -- which taste of vinegar or raw sewage. Let him do some soul-searching. If he RPs remorse, fine. Let it go. Cayden would know.
[Cayden Cailean] often shows his approval through the discovery of a fresh bottle of wine, but in cases where a mortal has instead drawn his ire, such found bottles invariably taste of vinegar or raw sewage.Here's your means of punishment. I hope the character RPs drinking in that tavern that's their base. Have strangers offer him drinks -- which taste of vinegar or raw sewage. Let him do some soul-searching. If he RPs remorse, fine. Let it go. Cayden would know.
This, completely. And going this route, I would actually not immediately state to the player what they'd done wrong, as was suggested earlier - better to just give them the hint and let them draw their own conclusions. If it isn't clear to them right away, if they want help with an answer, they'll ask for one, IC and/or OOC. IC possibly providing nice RP chances. Just saying "you realize you should feel bad for doing that thing" is likely to feel a lot more in-your-face and bossy to the rogue's player, imo. And without any benefit that I can see.