depends... it's not really lawful (no due process), but not necessary evil if the cultist was evil himself... characters are often stuck into positions where they have to be judge jury and executioner, not a motive to make a paladin fall, particularly if dragging the cultist to proper authorities for formal trial is not practical (far away from civilisation, time is of the essence, etc).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Killing your prisoner is an evil act. Once they are a prisoner, their safety becomes your responsibility. They are no longer a threat to you or your party. There is no way that killing a defenceless person (which would be the normal definition of a prisoner) can be considered a Chaotic Good action.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
There have been like thirty threads on this already.
To some people such as the poster immediately above (mostly the 'lawful good in real life' types) it's in the 'always evil' category.
To others, such as the poster immediately below, it's all about context. Was handing them over to the proper authorities a practical option? Or was it a choice between quick death and releasing them to do more evil?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It spends entirely on the circumstances. What was the cultist doing when he was caught? What kind of cultist (being a member of a cult isn't necessarily evil or illegal)? How was the cultist killed? Why was the cultist killed and not turned over to proper authorities?
Without details, it is impossible to say what kind of action it is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good is white. Evil is black. Not everything is full good (white) or full black.
Kill is evil act.
Help people is good act.
You can do acts both things at time.
Free the cultist is good. But he can do lot of evil acts later. Killing him is evil, but he cant do more evil acts. The cultist cant do good acts dead. Think in Gandalf talking tp frodo about gollum execution in Lord of the rings movie.
Gollum is evil, but he throw the ring (actident) to the fiee
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would call it an evil act unless there were some exceptional mitigating circumstances. For example a mercy killing if your prisoner was going to die anyway. Or the prisoner was really a demon in disguise.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Executing criminals is not inherently evil, depending on their crime. I mean executing petty thieves is pretty Evil, but serial killers? Not so much.
The difference between a legally empowered court doing this and an individual doing so is a Law/Chaos distinction not a Good/Evil one.
Therefore, it really depends on whether the prisoner has committed some crime worthy of execution. If they have, it's probably still not a Good act, but it's not Evil either. If they haven't done anything worthy of execution then it's Evil.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Executing criminals is not inherently evil, depending on their crime. I mean executing petty thieves is pretty Evil, but serial killers? Not so much.
The difference between a legally empowered court doing this and an individual doing so is a Law/Chaos distinction not a Good/Evil one.
Therefore, it really depends on whether the prisoner has committed some crime worthy of execution. If they have, it's probably still not a Good act, but it's not Evil either. If they haven't done anything worthy of execution then it's Evil.
^ this
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
from core rulebook PRD
"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."
You can be good doing evil things, same you can be chaotic doing lawful things (or even evil doing good things, and why not lawfull but law should be more strict)
A chaotic man who who respect authority its doing law act. But can do it, nothing happens.
A good guy can kill, nothing happens.
This thing dont change that Kill is evil act.
Why you kill and how, could change your alignement (and how your gm thinks)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Executing criminals is not inherently evil, depending on their crime. I mean executing petty thieves is pretty Evil, but serial killers? Not so much.
I think Kill is ever evil act. A good act will be try another thing, like reeducate the guy, redeeming him.
The difference between a legally empowered court doing this and an individual doing so is a Law/Chaos distinction not a Good/Evil one.
Indeed
Therefore, it really depends on whether the prisoner has committed some crime worthy of execution.
"crime worthy of execution" good characters arent judge dredd to choice that and execute
If they have, it's probably still not a Good act, but it's not Evil either. If they haven't done anything worthy of execution then it's Evil.
Being legally empower is law/chaos, Kill is evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless the alignment system is somehow essential to your game you should consider scrapping it. It's really quite liberating. Though it was easier for my group as no one uses alignment based spells and abilities.
^ thisExecuting criminals is not inherently evil, depending on their crime. I mean executing petty thieves is pretty Evil, but serial killers? Not so much.
The difference between a legally empowered court doing this and an individual doing so is a Law/Chaos distinction not a Good/Evil one.
Therefore, it really depends on whether the prisoner has committed some crime worthy of execution. If they have, it's probably still not a Good act, but it's not Evil either. If they haven't done anything worthy of execution then it's Evil.
Yep
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Mondragon:
Killing is pretty obviously not universally Evil. I mean, Smite Evil exists, as do several Good deities that actually specifically advocate doing things like slaying the wicked.
Yeah, just killing people people out of hand is not generally a Good thing to do, but sometimes you have very limited options. Not every enemy wants to be redeemed, nor is letting go someone you found about to, say, kill a child a reasonable or Good act. Imprisoning them is often impossible, to boot. And not always a better solution anyway.
If all that's true...what option do you have but killing them? And that's not necessarily Evil or a bad thing to do.
Imprisoning would often be the "best" good solution, but that it not always feasible.
And in a world with magic, removing weapons are armor might be insufficient to guarantee someone is no longer a threat.
|
|
Imprisoning would often be the "best" good solution, but that it not always feasible.
And in a world with magic, removing weapons are armor might be insufficient to guarantee someone is no longer a threat.
Even for a mundane character, you need a pretty secure place to imprison them or they are likely to escape one way or another.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) The normal setting of D&D/Pathfinder games is very far away from today. A paladin is allowed to capture, interrogate, and execute criminals freely without problem.
2) It can be more than hassel to get someone to 'proper' authority. You can't just have the wizard set up a telepathic link to 911 and have someone show up.
3) You gave us very little detail. Was the cultist evil? Did he promise to reform? Was he giving you use info or just being a dick? Why was he captured instead of outright killed like the other cultists?
4) This is suppose to be a fun game with friends. Can we stop bringing moral quandaries like this up unless the player is doing truly gruesome acts, please?
|
|
Following Core Rulebook Alignment Its imposible not to do all Good/Evil/Law/Chaos Things
You pay for the things you take? Law, i dont care if you are CG, this is Law Act.
You got 2 orders from same master and cant do both? Chaos anything you do
You kill a guy who is suffering deadly? Evil act.
Heal your loved one, who dont love you? Good Act.
And the baby goblin dilema...
Killed a goblin village and find babies...
Kill them? some link some place says its good for mercy, but im think evil cause not respect life as core rulebook reads
Lets them alone and the nature will choice... what is that? i think cruel
Bring them with you as your childrens? Its good, but an evil villain will do it to get their minions
...
we manage to capture a cultist, so we interrogate them.
however when we finished interrogate them, one of my teammates kill him.
is it considered chaotic good or evil act ?
Consult your GM.
That's called executing a prisioner. If killing would be considered either chaotic or evil, then lawful good outsiders would be forbidden from doing so or they would risk the wrath of their deities.
good outsiders kill demons all the time... and won't hesitate to take the human Law in their hands and kill other malefactors if they stumble on them.
|
|
Demon its an evil being, not a dude with choice to be good or evil (and chance to change)
Kill is evil act. And they can do it.
I like the alignemt threads. This thread is about if kill prisioner is evil act. I think sl cause i think kill is evil.
About good outsiders its nice question. They take prisioners? They execute them? Are they perfect? Can a good outsider be corrupted? And an Evil one redeem?
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starting an alignment thread is Chaotic Evil
|
|
Killing is not Good by itself, since it disregards the Respect for life tenet of Good
Still, it can be Neutral or Evil, depending IMO on who you kill.
If the target is an innocent creature, then Evil.
Otherwise, likely Neutral.
Killing a prisoner who surrendered to the party ? If the party has a rule against killing prisoners, then Chaotic. Otherwise usually Neutral, or even Lawful if the character's upbringing entails casually killing prisoners.
That's how I would basically rule it anyway
Then, circumstances can change all of this too.
|
|
I think the alignemt is like a balance.
Put good things aside and evil in the other side.
Some things weight more and other less. If a side is overweight clear then you are in this alignemt. Even if you got things in the other side.
Same for law/chaos.
Angels and similars same. They can do things in other side. But their balance is heavy oveeweight in their side
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) The normal setting of D&D/Pathfinder games is very far away from today. A paladin is allowed to capture, interrogate, and execute criminals freely without problem.
Watchman: "Please explain the twenty-three corpses in your basement."
Suspect: "I captured, 'interrogated' and executed them. You see, I'm a paladin. Don't worry, they were all criminals of some sort."Watchman: "Oh, in that case there's no problem! You're free to go. I'll inform their relatives that they had it coming."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) The normal setting of D&D/Pathfinder games is very far away from today. A paladin is allowed to capture, interrogate, and execute criminals freely without problem.Watchman: "Please explain the twenty-three corpses in your basement."
Suspect: "I captured, 'interrogated' and executed them. You see, I'm a paladin. Don't worry, they were all criminals of some sort."
Watchman: "Oh, in that case there's no problem! You're free to go. I'll inform their relatives that they had it coming."
Generally speaking, if in a town, a Paladin should not do this and might easily fall for doing so.
In unclaimed land or the wilderness, terra incognita, on the other hand...there literally is no law, no authorities, no jail, and no watchmen and the Paladin doing this suddenly becomes quite reasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it easier if you decouple morality from good and Evil Axis' and assume they are objective forces / teams in the universe (because they are in pathfinder).
So you delineate between cosmic [Good] and [Evil] and moral good and evil. I.e Killing a Good creature is Evil and killing an Evil Creature is Good. The nature of the kill might be evil by moral standards but is objectively [Good] by cosmic standards. Ideally the way you kill aligns with both the cosmic and the moral but that is not always possible or feasible. But so long as you are adhering to the cosmic [Good] you don't actually suffer a mechanical penalty.
That way you almost totally avoid situations like this. And I personally think it's necessary as they game is about killing (usually evil) things so such an act shouldn't cause undue mechanical strife.
Also just because it is a cosmically [Good] act doesn't mean you wouldn't suffer legal repercussions from mortal justice systems like how Deadmanwalking described.
This is really your DMs job to make clear what kind of genre rules you're playing with so that you don't get caught up in a *Surprise! Morality!* situation.
One of the following should generally always be the case:
* Accuse the prisoner of his crimes. Hear his defense. Pass sentence. Execute. Brood in the grim darkness.
* Prisoner attacks you after interrogation so that you can kill him while still maintaining your good-guy status.
*Prisoner succumbs to previously unnoticed wounds after interrogation so you don't waste time on unimportant things.
* Let him go because he seems repentant. He dissolves into the ether since he no longer matters.
* Let him go because he seems repentant. Encounter him later, where he either helps you and becomes a minor (possibly) reoccurring NPC or tries to hinder you, only to die in a horrible fashion. Wink at karma.
* Be an evil and also pragmatic antihero.
* Take your first encounter back to town and spend the rest of the campaign trying to create a fair justice system, ignoring every plot hook you see until your task is complete.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
LG deity of executions as mentioned by deadmanwalking
LG deity who grants you boons if you slay a wrongdoer.
Respect for life doesn't necessarily mean you have to preserve life no matter the circumstances.
It's because [good] and [evil] are objective cosmic forces in pathfinder as well as abstract moral concepts
|
|
Way we handle it in my group : take no prisoners
Because we do not have the needed logistics that even armies rely on to deal with prisoners
In the end our golden rule is take responsibility for the consequences of your PC's acts
If killing the prisoner makes trouble for the party later on, do not kill him
If letting him live makes trouble for the party later on, kill him
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment system only fails if you try to use it as a weapon against your players. It is quickly self evident that outsiders made of the very foundations of alignment are not subject to restrictions that many GMs trying to "gotcha" their players try to impose.
It's because [good] and [evil] are objective cosmic forces in pathfinder as well as abstract moral conceptsIt still falls to the GM to decide which acts are Good and which are Evil
Right but i'm saying [good] and [evil] acts are pretty objective, killing an [evil] creature is not a [evil] act and should not be punished mechanically.
Whether or not it is morally good or evil is another matter.
Basically the mechanical and the fluff needs to / should be conceptually separated.
It liberates players from having a sword of Damocles hanging over their head for just playing the game as intended. And then leaves the RP / narrative consequences up to individual sensibilities.
Yes Timmy you're still good despite exterminating the entire goblin population of the continet with holy fire. You're now just seen as an overzealous holy crusader who should probably have a talk with Ragathiel or Vildeis.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Executing criminals is not inherently evil, depending on their crime.
That whole "Due process" thing is there for many reasons. Avoiding killing wrongfully accused is one. But it is also very important that justice be SEEN to be done.
Socially, there is a HUGE difference between "Well, these guys attacked us so we killed them" and "Well, these guys attacked us so we defended ourselves. Took some prisoners. Who were later convicted of their crimes in a public court"
It is for THIS reason, as much as the first, that I think killing prisoners just because it is convenient is wrong (and, lets face it, for many groups the threshold amounts to convenience). Wrong bordering on evil, depending on circumstances.
If taking prisoners is impossible for some reason (mission is too critical, the crime took place in an area under nobodies control, etc) then the decision is harder. And killing is no longer an evil act
Executing criminals is not inherently evil, depending on their crime.That whole "Due process" thing is there for many reasons. Avoiding killing wrongfully accused is one. But it is also very important that justice be SEEN to be done.
Socially, there is a HUGE difference between "Well, these guys attacked us so we killed them" and "Well, these guys attacked us so we defended ourselves. Took some prisoners. Who were later convicted of their crimes in a public court"
It is for THIS reason, as much as the first, that I think killing prisoners just because it is convenient is wrong (and, lets face it, for many groups the threshold amounts to convenience). Wrong bordering on evil, depending on circumstances.
If taking prisoners is impossible for some reason (mission is too critical, the crime took place in an area under nobodies control, etc) then the decision is harder. And killing is no longer an evil act
It easy to say this from a modern world perspective where you're never more than a couple hour car ride (at most) from a town with a jail or proper legal authority.
But when you're potentially weeks away from civilization walking by foot, it becomes a difficult proposition to escort a prisoner and assure they don't escape, potentially harming others after they do so.
I agree it's definitely not a good act to execute prisoners, I don't believe anyone thinks it is. But we're arguing that it can be a neutral act rather than an evil one.