| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My general philosophy on the game function of alignment is that the purpose of alignment is to get players to think about how their characters internally justify their actions or motivations. If you're stopping to think "wait, is this good?" and you're able to come up with a justification, then you should be all right.
The purpose of having "Good" on your character sheet is to get you to ask that question, not to punish you if you step out of line. Just due to the nature of the game, a lot of people the party runs into are going to end up dead, and context is going to be the deciding factor on "is this okay?".
Hi all, i was playing with my party yesterday, i'm not an expert player. I have a question for you all: can good characters kill for their ideals of freedom and still be good?
Is a particular situation, the fight was ended, and the guards of the dictatorship were unconscious. The rebel can't let them alive, this makes them automatically not good? A good character can kill enemies only in a fight?
Sorry for my bad english guys, and thanks a lot.
Is there a reason the rebels needed to kill them after knocking them out? If it was about leaving evidence of their presence, the dead guards might do so as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good isn't Stupid. Neither is Evil.
A lot of novice RPGers have problems understanding that.
There's a pretty good framework for addressing issues like this, courtesy of the Just War theory espoused by the current Catholic Church. For violence to be justified:
* the damage inflicted by the [evil person to be killed] must be lasting, grave, and certain; the guards of the Evil Overlord certainly qualify here.
* all other means of [dealing with them] must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; As Andre Roy pointed out, was "taking them prisoner" a realistic option?
* there must be serious prospects of success [for the good guys]; presumably the rebels are actually trying to win, and aren't just trying to raise Hell?
* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated; it doesn't sound like you did anything to the Evil Overlord's henchmen that He wouldn't have them do to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you kill evil tyrants and slavers, I guess you can both be good and kill for the ideal of freedom... then again, the one with the real say on that in your campaign is the DM.
Hi all, i was playing with my party yesterday, i'm not an expert player. I have a question for you all: can good characters kill for their ideals of freedom and still be good?
Is a particular situation, the fight was ended, and the guards of the dictatorship were unconscious. The rebel can't let them alive, this makes them automatically not good? A good character can kill enemies only in a fight?
Sorry for my bad english guys, and thanks a lot.
Is killing a helpless opponent an evil act?
Yes. There is no other answer. There is no justification. There is nothing. Killing a helpless opponent is evil.
The only people who should have to worry about something like this are Paladins. They have penalties where they get smacked for a single evil action. So unless you are a Paladin, your character feels bad. Unless this becomes a regular occurrence this isn't going to be a terrible thing.
I have to disagree, if the helpless opponent is irredeemably evil, then swif execution is a merciful option and not evil
My general philosophy on the game function of alignment is that the purpose of alignment is to get players to think about how their characters internally justify their actions or motivations. If you're stopping to think "wait, is this good?" and you're able to come up with a justification, then you should be all right.
The purpose of having "Good" on your character sheet is to get you to ask that question, not to punish you if you step out of line. Just due to the nature of the game, a lot of people the party runs into are going to end up dead, and context is going to be the deciding factor on "is this okay?".
mind if i quote you on this at a later undetermined date?
edit: more likely paraphrase
Yes, I liked a lot that explanation too.
People tend to consider good a lot of different things, and I hate having to impose to my players my point of view on what is good and what is not.
As long as they are making an effort to play good, they are not trying to exploit or twist the alignment system to do what they want and they can give a good reason to justify that their actions are good I am fine.
Of course, there are some players that need stronger guidelines for their alignment, but when you have serious and mature players, it works fine.
Weird enough, I have a harder time playing evil characters. I make an effort to make them be believable, with logic motivations, some virtues, a good justification to see themselves as they were doing the right things.
So I end developing my villains and evil PCs in a way that sometimes makes me think they are not evil enough.
My players love redeeming baddies, so they have never complained. I've used too this kind of baddies who are utterly evil and cannot be reasoned with or redeemed, but they are not my favorite kind.
Young sailor, up the mast on a raft: "Cannibalism is a sin! you will rot in hell for this!"
Old sailor, hacking down that mast: "What do you think confession's for? Here, piggy, piggy, piggy!"
Mayonnaise is evil. Mustard is good.
Waitress, I'd like to have an evil sandwich, please.
Hi all, i was playing with my party yesterday, i'm not an expert player. I have a question for you all: can good characters kill for their ideals of freedom and still be good?
Is a particular situation, the fight was ended, and the guards of the dictatorship were unconscious. The rebel can't let them alive, this makes them automatically not good? A good character can kill enemies only in a fight?
Sorry for my bad english guys, and thanks a lot.
Is killing a helpless opponent an evil act?
Yes. There is no other answer. There is no justification. There is nothing. Killing a helpless opponent is evil.
Does this make a character instantly non-good?
No. It takes multiple evil acts to make a character shift in alignment.
The only people who should have to worry about something like this are Paladins. They have penalties where they get smacked for a single evil action. So unless you are a Paladin, your character feels bad. Unless this becomes a regular occurrence this isn't going to be a terrible thing.
False, you might mean:
Is killing a helpless opponent an evil act?No. There is no other answer.
Now, circumstances can make this an evil act.
Did he surrender and you promised him no harm? Then it would be evil to kill him as he is considered innocent as long as he truly surrendered.
Helpless doesn't make one innocent. Only killing innocents is automatically an evil act.
Actually, killing an enemy who surrenders after you gave your word he'd not be harmed is more chaotic than evil... the good/evil axis comes on how evil the foe is and how susceptible to redemption.
Someone who follows strict rules such as "killing a helpless opponent is always evil" is probably Lawful Good. (Or Lawful Neutral.)
A Neutral Good character would be more likely to consider not the rules, but the likely consequences of the act. If you let him live, will it cause other people to die? They know that "don't kill helpless enemies" is a good rule of thumb, but they're willing to acknowledge the possibility that there might be special cases where, for example, murdering Hitler in his sleep is better than any of the alternatives.
(Personally I don't see how killing a non-helpless person is any better - it's not like nonlethal damage isn't an option.)
This is not a simple answer because not enough information was provided. Without knowing the circumstances and the nature of the guards it is impossible to determine if this is a good or evil act.
Is the dictator actually evil? You could easily have a lawful neutral dictator still oppresses people without being evil. Rahadoum is a perfect example of this. They ruthlessly impose their views on everyone and will tolerate any kind of divine ability. You could even have a lawful good dictator who imposes his own version of good on everyone even if they don’t want it.
Even if the dictator is evil that does not mean the guards are evil. Even in societies ruled by evil most people including guards tend to be neutral. It makes a big difference if the guards are simply doing their jobs, or if they are murderous killer and child molesters. Was the fight because the guards were in the middle of doing an evil act, or were they attacked simply because they were guards?
What is the consequence of leaving the guards alive? Was the fight part of a mission to save people or stop evil? If the fight was part of a mission against evil what will happen if the guards are left alive? If the only way to complete your mission is to kill the guards then it may not be an evil act. If on the other hand you don’t need to kill the guards than killing them may be an evil act. A lot of it will depend on the nature of the guards.
If the guards are murderous villains who were caught in the attempt of murdering and raping innocent people than it would probably be a good deed. If on the other hand the guards were on guarding the treasure room of a lawful
I'd say it's definitely not "good", but whether it is evil would of course depend on the circumstances, the full details of which are not provided
A good character would have hope for the human spirit. He would spare the guards, because (1) he doesn't want to kill and (2) he hopes they will come around to his point of view. To some extent, good is a kind of arrogance.
In stories, typically in movies and such, the bad guys frequently behave more mercifully than the "good" guys, because you can't kill the hero, whereas the good guys slay people left and right without a thought.
That's why shows like Game of Thrones deliberately kill off major good characters. They writer hates that trope/rule.
Good isn't Stupid. Neither is Evil.
A lot of novice RPGers have problems understanding that.
There's a pretty good framework for addressing issues like this, courtesy of the Just War theory espoused by the current Catholic Church. For violence to be justified:
* the damage inflicted by the [evil person to be killed] must be lasting, grave, and certain; the guards of the Evil Overlord certainly qualify here.
* all other means of [dealing with them] must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; As Andre Roy pointed out, was "taking them prisoner" a realistic option?
* there must be serious prospects of success [for the good guys]; presumably the rebels are actually trying to win, and aren't just trying to raise Hell?
* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated; it doesn't sound like you did anything to the Evil Overlord's henchmen that He wouldn't have them do to you.
I would be very careful about following ANYTHING the RCC says regarding good and evil, or even morality in general.
That said, much of that theory seems decent. One thing that is not, though, is that all other means have been SHOWN to be impractical. That puts the burden of proof, endlessly so, on the rebel - which would be a very bad thing in a violent dictatorship. Then again, the RCC has no shortage of backing up those.
Regarding the guards, I would say they are far from innocent simply given their support for the regime. Live by the sword, die by the sword should be an acceptable principle. A wicked regime has to deal with violence by not letting civilized ways of conflict resolution work. It does get more complicated if they were drafted, of course. A safe bet is that the officer volunteered, though. I don't see much in the way of alignment issues here: The situation is an acute one of life or death, and beyond that the risk of them reporting is likely too great.
I would say that the real issue is whether what the rebels want is actually a good thing.
Good is Stupid.
Sorry, but it feels like there is a step missing from the initial scenario.
Why must they die?
Anytime someone uses the word anytime is an alignment discussion they are usually wrong. There are exceptions to almost any rule. In most cases killing a helpless person would be considered evil, but there are a lot of exceptions to that rule
I would consider ending a person’s life to prevent them from suffer as a good deed. If there is no hope of survival and the person is in great pain ending their life can be considered merciful. Letting a person needlessly suffer is often cruel. Sometimes it may not be actively killing them, but rather withholding treatment that could keep them alive longer. Deciding when this is appropriate is the hardest thing that a human will ever have to do.
Another situation where killing an innocent person can be a good deed is to save the lives of others. If for example you had a situation where a helpless person even a child had an air born lethal disease and was in a situation where they were going to contaminate others and the only way to stop would be to kill the child. This disease is spreads so rapidly and is so deadly it can wipe out all life of the planet. The child does not know or realize they are infected and they are about to come in contact with rest of the world. Let say they are escaping from a room that is filling up with water and you can stop them by closing the door. If you close the door the child will die. If you do not close the door all life on the planet will die including the child because then there will be no one to take care of the child and it will starve to death. In this case closing the door would be a good act.
What really makes the difference in whether an act can be considered good or evil is the persons motivation and their reactions afterwards. In booth of the above cases a good person would be profoundly disturbed by his actions and feel genuine remorse
I tend to revert to the Good = Selfless (do a degree) Evil = Selfish (to a degree)
There is not enough information given by the OP to know WHAT the motivation for killing them is. Every reason I come up with is self-serving and puts the wants/desires of the rebel over all other considerations, and upon a helpless opponent at that.
If the only real reason to kill unconscious guards is, "so I can remain anonymous/not be identified as the rebel," then yes, I would consider that self-serving and therefore basically evil.
If the reason is to prevent them from sounding the alarm, then yes, it is evil because you can do that through non-lethal means (bind/gag.)
That's why shows like Game of Thrones deliberately kill off major good characters. They writer hates that trope/rule.
Game of Thrones kills off characters for shock value, to tie up loose ends the showrunners don't know what to do with, and (increasingly more as the show goes on) for fanservice.
Killing is not a good thing, nor is it always an evil thing.
Best movie scene about this was a captured serial killer taunting a cop that he would be judged insane, fool the doctors, be freed, and come and kill the cops family.
Cop said, "I believe you." Then put a bullet in the serial killer's brain.
I wouldn't have a paladin fall for that.
As for the Gygax anecdote, consider the source, he was an interesting, but flawed man. If the quote was accurate, it was just another thing he said that I don't agree with. Really, a redeemed man is a force for good.
People seem to have a fundemental misunderstanding about what evil is. Evil is not bigger than life, it is smaller than life. It is someone who could change the world being more concerned with petty grudges and making sure anything that annoys him pays for it, and pays big. It takes joy in crushing the less powerful. It will kill a benefactor to get closer to the benefactor's wealth.
To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.
I did that one on another thread too. I think the thread title was "what the purpose of this game?" like third post too. good times. good times.
So basically I approve
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin, as viewed by Gygax: "You have surrendered and proclaimed your conversion to the law and good. You, having been just recently the willing servant of evil, are a high recidivism risk. I will therefore send you to the afterlife so that you may not stain that conviction by backsliding."
I am of the opinion that this is the standard - that 'surrender' is not, and should not be, a 'get out of being slain free' card, especially not if they have committed grievous acts of harm in the past, whether that be recent or distant, with no intervening drift (slow or swift) away from evil.
IMO, in a fantasy domain in which the gods are a real part via paladins, divination, and the like, the once-evil good character will lift their chin to the sword and ask the lawbringer to make their justice be swift. The not-actually-good character, the 'says he surrenders and repents to try to save his skin', will tend to squeal and beg to not be executed, try to lawyerly-weasel his way out of it, and that sort of thing.
Killing a helpless foe is, by modern standards, an evil thing. In a medieval setting, this just ain't so. If you have no way to take them into custody, enslave them, and sell them to a distant market, if they're likely to try to escape (and considering prisons of the day, escape is quite possible) and slay your own people in the attempt and/or on their way back to their own homeland, then execution of the 'helpless' is not only 'not evil', it's justifiably good.
The question somewhat turns on the Batman/Joker question. The Bat always captures Joker; Joker always escapes and kills a few (or a few dozen/hundred) people. Batman doesn't kill Mr. J, because he's 'better than him'. That, in essence, applies the first time; even applies the second time. But by the third time, it doesn't.
The same question resides in the use of execution, which is currently reserved to the State; these foes are helpless, are they not? Sure, they've undergone trials, but make no mistake, both the innocent and the redeemed have been executed. (And the redeemed have all had the 'make your justice swift' attitude I speak of above. Because redeemed.) The point here, however, is that 'killing a helpless foe' - execution by any other name - is something done in regards to and for the society in (or for) which it takes place. If an individual is too dangerous to allow to live, if the methodology to keep them alive is not practical (or, as in some cases, exceedingly laborious), if one can adequately judge their past actions, then execution is entirely lawful and good - and in such cases may well be considered a violation of the social compact to keep the offender alive.
Going back to the OP, the question that would need to be asked is 'were they willing participants in the Evil Overlord's schemes?' I'd think one could safely assume (you know, Evil Overlord and all) that they were indeed. Another question might be 'how soon are they going to wake up, get free, and follow us to stab us in the back?' Because the last thing you need when you finally confront the EO is his henchmen hitting you in a flanking maneuver ...
That's why shows like Game of Thrones deliberately kill off major good characters. They writer hates that trope/rule.Game of Thrones kills off characters for shock value, to tie up loose ends the showrunners don't know what to do with, and (increasingly more as the show goes on) for fanservice.Yeah. Martin is a hack writer.
He whacks characters to get shock value only, or when he realizes that a character has become inconvenient. The series is chock full of bad writing too, such as one Mr. Mary-Sue Snow who literally fits the entire Mary Sue package to a T.
Clearly you lot know very little to nothing about history. George R.R. is taking the Song almost completely from the English War of the Roses. 'Favorite character' death is, well, rife in reality. Sorry.
Clearly you lot know very little to nothing about history. George R.R. is taking the Song almost completely from the English War of the Roses. 'Favorite character' death is, well, rife in reality. Sorry.
Who hasn't been told that Stark/Lannister = York/Lancaster by now? It doesn't necessarily make someone a bad writer to put a fantasy veneer on a historical event, everything is after all derivative, but it doesn't make one a good author either. The series' shocking deaths were supposed to indicate that no one has plot armor and everyone suffers the consequences of their bad decisions. That's fine, in fact GoT became popular because that was refreshing. But as it went on, it got to the point that character death lost its shock value, good characters were replaced with bad ones, and Daenerys, Arya, Tyrion, and Jon Snow are plot-armored to the gills because they're the fan favorites.
As for alignment, I think anyone who has read my posts in these threads knows what I think of it: It's useless as a descriptor, because the arguments over alignment are endless and unsolvable. Philosophers have wrestled with the problem of "What does it mean to be a good person" since the beginning, and as far as anyone knows, no "ultimate" answer will ever be found. Law vs. Chaos is even worse: What shall we make of a Paladin whose moral code compels him to overthrow a tyrannical, but legitimate, king at the risk of plunging the realm into anarchy? It becomes worse than useless when alignment is enforced by mechanics, as it is with most divine casting classes, plus Monks and Barbarians. For a good chunk of the game's characters (half the classes in the CRB!), alignment really is prescriptive. It's telling that many (most?) RPG systems, especially those that aren't D&D derivatives, do not bother with alignment at all.
For what it's worth, as far as I'm concerned, if you let a killer go free his next victim's blood is on your hands as well.
I tend to revert to the Good = Selfless (do a degree) Evil = Selfish (to a degree)
There is not enough information given by the OP to know WHAT the motivation for killing them is. Every reason I come up with is self-serving and puts the wants/desires of the rebel over all other considerations, and upon a helpless opponent at that.
If the only real reason to kill unconscious guards is, "so I can remain anonymous/not be identified as the rebel," then yes, I would consider that self-serving and therefore basically evil.
If the reason is to prevent them from sounding the alarm, then yes, it is evil because you can do that through non-lethal means (bind/gag.)
That logic basically makes any form of self-preservation evil.
Attacked by baddie of the week? Well defending yourself is just selfish. Why aren't you letting those bandits rob and murder you? You just want to protect yourself and your selfish material possessions. How greedy and evil can you get?
Working to make a living? So it's all about yourself and your material desires again. Monster.
I mean true Good that isn't that much of a stretch as you think. Buddha just turned attacks to flower but he didn't harm the attackers. Gandhi probably would of just gave the robbers his stuff if he had stuff. your example is extreme but not out of the range of reality.
also taking the bandits back to a nearby authority for trial is probably a reasonable thing to do as opposed to executing them on the spot while they are defenseless. Its more lawful that way the Good thing would be to let them go or try and show them the error of their ways if we want to go with an ultimate good as good can be good.
If you believe in rehabilitation taking them back to the constable or what have you meets both of those really.
I mean think about our system if someone jumps you you can defend yourself but if that person gives up or submits shooting them in the head after would probably make for a difficult case for your lawyer.
Really thought his is just turning into another one of those morale debate threads and I've already been through one and stated the philosophy and all that so I would go look up one of those. I think in the end everyone is gonna decide for themselves anyways.
Re: Batman, if he kills joker, he's now a murderer, somebody the GCPD can no longer leave alone. In a sense, batsy leaves him alive so he's not in prison when the next villain shows up, which may well have apocalyptic-scale abilities.
If the Joker turns up dead, no cop is going to investigate that death. They'll just have a drink in celebration and sleep a little easier that night.
Re: Batman, if he kills joker, he's now a murderer, somebody the GCPD can no longer leave alone. In a sense, batsy leaves him alive so he's not in prison when the next villain shows up, which may well have apocalyptic-scale abilities.
He kills the Joker in the Killing Joke and gets away with it (ending sequence after finally laughing at Joker's jokes).
Uh, no - End of 'The Killing Joke', Joker gets taken away by GCPD as usual. Batman kills Joker in Frank Miller's 'The Dark Knight Returns'.
Uh, no - End of 'The Killing Joke', Joker gets taken away by GCPD as usual. Batman kills Joker in Frank Miller's 'The Dark Knight Returns'.
Batman decides to kill Joker in "Dark Knight Returns" but at the end he's not willing to cross the line. Broken and battered, Joker suicides after telling Batman that "they're going to pin this on you [anyway]."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two things to consider.
To whose benefit?
and
On whose expense?
For the benefit of others, and at your own expense? Good action.
For your own benefit, and at the expense of others? Evil action.
Every other combination falls into neutral.
This way has always felt intuitive to me.
A very good way of looking at it, Envall - even if that 'expense' lies in reputation and the like.