|
| 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
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.
*nods*
Justice doesn't need to be seen to be done, if someone witnesses an action it doesn't change the alignment of the action.
"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"
Um, no. Alignment does not work that way.
I'd posit all executions are a matter of convenience regardless of the justness of said execution. Basically you are not willing (or able) to spend resources on detaining them indefinitely so you kill them.
executing a prisoner could be a morally evil, neutral or good act depending on the justification and circumstance. Or at worse neutral if ones stance is all murder is inherently wrong to some degree (if so you're in the wrong line of work)
In regards to an actual alignment shift I think that should only ever come up if the person being executed is not evil (or it's being preformed in a grotesque / obscene manner) at which point it falls back to the circumstance and justification of the execution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Take the following as my opinion)
Ending the life of some sentient creature is never a good act. It is often an evil act, especially if done through malicious intent. The can be through means as simple as petty blood lust, convenience (as in a disregard for their life), or as an act of revenge.
Ending someone's life can be a non-evil act (as in neutral, never good) when it is done in defense of self (or others) or through carrying out a sentence (whether lawfully or not) based on the creature's past actions.
Now, to clarify. I believe that ending a life is NEVER a GOOD thing. At best, it can be neutral on that good/evil axis. Whether or not it is justified by law or chaos is heavily dependent on the circumstances leading up to the action. Ending the life of the big bad villain is not a GOOD thing, but the act of protecting all those he might further harm is a GOOD thing. Fighting the good fight is a GOOD thing. The trail of bodies that you have left in your wake, through no malicious intent of your own, is NOT a GOOD thing.
So, terminating the life of your prisoner after interrogation is not a GOOD thing. It might even have been evil if you had promised no harm to him if he did surrender (definitely evil).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Take the following as my opinion)
Ending the life of some sentient creature is never a good act. It is often an evil act, especially if done through malicious intent. The can be through means as simple as petty blood lust, convenience (as in a disregard for their life), or as an act of revenge.
Ending someone's life can be a non-evil act (as in neutral, never good) when it is done in defense of self (or others) or through carrying out a sentence (whether lawfully or not) based on the creature's past actions.
Now, to clarify. I believe that ending a life is NEVER a GOOD thing. At best, it can be neutral on that good/evil axis. Whether or not it is justified by law or chaos is heavily dependent on the circumstances leading up to the action. Ending the life of the big bad villain is not a GOOD thing, but the act of protecting all those he might further harm is a GOOD thing. Fighting the good fight is a GOOD thing. The trail of bodies that you have left in your wake, through no malicious intent of your own, is NOT a GOOD thing.
So, terminating the life of your prisoner after interrogation is not a GOOD thing. It might even have been evil if you had promised no harm to him if he did surrender (definitely evil).
Killing Demons is a Good Act on the Good/Evil Axis.
The Moral stance that killing is bad doesn't nessecarily carry over to the cosmic reality present in Pathifnder. If generally you kill a [Evil] creature it's a [Good] act (with some exceptions like torture / grotesque execution).
There's a LG god who explicitly says to take no prisoners except when it's strategically advantageous to do so.
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.
Honorably executing a prisoner after plying them for information can be totally permissible (and a [Good]) act.
|
|
Golarion literally and explicitly includes a LG deity of executions. The idea that all killing (or even all non self-defense killing), even executions of serial killers, is Evil just doesn't stand up under examination of the world assumptions.
I cant argue nothing against that!
But its non sense to me (like some gods of destruction of all not evil CN)
Anyway, execution cam be law and good act imho... (Or maybe LN in the portfolio of the god lg)
I'd say it depends on several factors. Did the cultist attempt to repent? (prob not, since its a cultist). What alignment and what deity is the PC? There are a lot of factors involved.
There are LG deities like Ragathiel who says to kill all evil, no matter what. That is not evil or chaotic. There are other Good deities, like Sarenrae, who would offer redemption first but is fine with killing if the subject won't repent.
Depends on all the specific circumstances.
Killing Demons is a Good Act on the Good/Evil Axis.The Moral stance that killing is bad doesn't nessecarily carry over to the cosmic reality present in Pathifnder. If generally you kill a [Evil] creature it's a [Good] act (with some exceptions like torture / grotesque execution).
There's a LG god who explicitly says to take no prisoners except when it's strategically advantageous to do so.
I maintain my opinion that the act of killing is never a Good thing. I don't care that a LG deity allows taking no prisoners. LG deities can have tenants that are non-Good and non-Evil, as I see his tenant to be. Killing an Evil creature is not a Good thing. The actions might be a Good thing if they are protecting innocents from further harm but that has no bearing to the actual ending of the life.
Again, my opinion. I am not telling you that you are wrong. I am telling you that my opinion differs from your own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing Demons is a Good Act on the Good/Evil Axis.The Moral stance that killing is bad doesn't nessecarily carry over to the cosmic reality present in Pathifnder. If generally you kill a [Evil] creature it's a [Good] act (with some exceptions like torture / grotesque execution).
There's a LG god who explicitly says to take no prisoners except when it's strategically advantageous to do so.
I maintain my opinion that the act of killing is never a Good thing. I don't care that a LG deity allows taking no prisoners. LG deities can have tenants that are non-Good and non-Evil, as I see his tenant to be. Killing an Evil creature is not a Good thing. The actions might be a Good thing if they are protecting innocents from further harm but that has no bearing to the actual ending of the life.
Again, my opinion. I am not telling you that you are wrong. I am telling you that my opinion differs from your own.
And you aren't wrong, in real life. But in the world of D&D/Pathfinder, our moralities and codes don't apply or translate directly. In our world Good and Evil are abstracts and subjective. In PF, Good and Evil are objective and can be physically measured. A person can have a literal Good Aura. It is tangible, testable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any
There is a lawful good empyreal lord of executions. Some people need to die. So this can be done by any alignment, the question is why and under what circumstances?
Lawful Good: The person has committed heinous crimes. He has been found guilty by a just and reasonable process to determine his guilt. The execution is to be carried out by a duly appointed representative of the community under culturally accepted conditions.
Neutral Good: Would really like lawful goods standards and timing as closely as possible but if you really need to be removed from the gene pool don't count on them not calling...
Chaotic Good. The world would be a much better place with someone as worm food. You make them worm food. Fair fight, in their sleep it doesn't matter. They need to go you get them gone.
Lawful neutral: Says here on the form you're to be executed. Please don't make a fuss about this I have a scheduel.
True neutral: Lawful goods way is nice for innocent people, really not going to care about the others as long as it's nobody i know.
Lawful evil: Says here on the form you're to be executed. Please don't make a fuss about this I have a scheduel. No my cousin is NOT in charge of filling these out*, why do you ask person competing with me for business?
Neutral evil: Whats in it for me?
Chaotic Evil: Lucille is thirsty! Eenie meanie miney moe...
* he DOES fill them out though. He's just not in charge
I maintain my opinion that the act of killing is never a Good thing. I don't care that a LG deity allows taking no prisoners. LG deities can have tenants that are non-Good and non-Evil, as I see his tenant to be. Killing an Evil creature is not a Good thing. The actions might be a Good thing if they are protecting innocents from further harm but that has no bearing to the actual ending of the life.
Again, my opinion. I am not telling you that you are wrong. I am telling you that my opinion differs from your own.
And in a game such as this those distinctions can be concretely labeled as such if you so choose. In the real world, far more often than not, "good" and "evil" is highly subjective and circumstantial.....keep in mind you kill everytime you draw a breath or eat ;)
And you aren't wrong, in real life. But in the world of D&D/Pathfinder, our moralities and codes don't apply or translate directly. In our world Good and Evil are abstracts and subjective. In PF, Good and Evil are objective and can be physically measured. A person can have a literal Good Aura. It is tangible, testable.
I was not referring to my opinion of alignment in "real life". It was that opinion as it is applied to the alignment system in Pathfinder. There are definitely actions that can be labelled concretely good and evil (also lawful and chaotic) in Pathfinder universe, but my stance is that the act of killing itself isn't an aligned action. The motivations and intentions leading up to that action are the determining factors, more so than the act itself.
This is why animals that kill other animals do not have alignments (even factoring in their intelligence is too low to effectively understand morality). Killing is a survival mechanism, to protect an individual from harm, whether through physical assault on their person or to keep hunger at bay.
A person can have a good aura, because they are (like a cleric or paladin) a wielder of divine magic, or represent the ideals of that alignment, and the concentration of that power gives them that aura. It does not make that 'person' or their actions any more Good. A Lawful Neutral cleric can have an aura of Law and Good if they worship a good aligned deity. It doesn't make them 'Good'.
And in a game such as this those distinctions can be concretely labeled as such if you so choose. In the real world, far more often than not, "good" and "evil" is highly subjective and circumstantial.....keep in mind you kill everytime you draw a breath or eat ;)
And, using the same logic that people in the Pathfinder universe inhale millions of germs and microscopic creatures with every breathe and bite of food, so does every person in the Pathfinder universe. This only strengthens my opinion that the act of killing is unaligned. It takes sentience and an active will to make the act of killing anything other than unaligned (or Neutral, which is the same thing).
Again, my opinions as it applies to my understanding of the Pathfinder universe.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if one were to ask me, the alignment thing in the crb alignment stuff should have said murdering instead of killing just so that it tightened up that interpretation of what it meant. word count and all...
I'm actually fine with it saying killing. Reason being that where I live (Germany) article 1 of our Grundgesetz says that "human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."
That includes the dignity of criminals and is (one of) the reason(s) that in Germany there is no punishment by death. And also the reason why in the eyes of a lot of germans, death sentence, even if legally authorized, is a very act of evil.
Don't want to harp on that, it's just to explain why I consider the act of killing a prisoner as evil no matter what. Obviously I accept killing as part of the game (wouldn't make much sense playing it otherwise), but in my games, it's basically restricted to a) killing in self-defense, b) killing to protect other people's lives and c) killing non-redeemable entities like demons. Maybe add d) killing in a war scenario. Purely my own opinion, of course, and as far as RAW begs to differ, call it a house rule instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if one were to ask me, the alignment thing in the crb alignment stuff should have said murdering instead of killing just so that it tightened up that interpretation of what it meant. word count and all...
Well, when go all FREEEDOOOM! on the chelaxian slaver and free his cart full of halflings, that is a murder in the eyes of the law.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But its non sense to me (like some gods of destruction of all not evil CN)
Paizo makes some alignment decisions (NPCs especially) that I think are at least one of :
a) Totally against their own written guidelines
b) Completely inconsistent with other alignment decisions
c) Completely incomprehensible to those of us from the real world who aren't sociopaths :-)
Local opinion is that they think smite evil is too powerful and needs to be nerfed :-)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A party might not have a choice but to summarily execute a prisoner. But that means that it's forgivable, not that it's not an evil thing to do. To say it's not evil would mean (to me, anyway) there's nothing to forgive, no wrong being done, and that's just not the case.
It's wrong to murder your prisoner in cold blood.
All executions are done 'in cold blood'. Neither I, nor the campaign setting, consider all executions to be inherently Evil. That depends on the severity of the crime.
And, as I said in my first post, the distinction between a court passing sentence and an individual doing so is a Law/Chaos distinction. And even then, in an area with no established laws, what better judge and authority is there?
It's not a Good act either, mind you, but it's solidly Neutral.
|
|
the distinction between a court passing sentence and an individual doing so is a Law/Chaos distinction.
I disagree. One of the main purposes of the legal system is to maximize the chance that it gets things right. You're making the unwarranted assumption that the individual is no more likely to make a mistake than the court.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. One of the main purposes of the legal system is to maximize the chance that it gets things right. You're making the unwarranted assumption that the individual is no more likely to make a mistake than the court.
the distinction between a court passing sentence and an individual doing so is a Law/Chaos distinction.
I probably should have stipulated 'with equal amounts of evidence'. Killing people on suspicion is obviously a problem, and one courts are almost always better at solving than individuals.
But in the situations PCs are usually in? If you're executing people, you're doing so to people you've likely caught red handed (often after they just actively tried to kill you), or with vast truckloads of evidence all around them. They often confess loudly without even being asked. Heck, if there's any doubt most PC groups have actual magic they can use to verify the guilt of the people in question.
Under those circumstances? Yes, that's about as good as a court proceeding, morally speaking.