|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, Hannabel Lector (Epic level rogue) comes to murder (or multilate) you and your family. You are a level 1 commoner. By some miracle he knocks himself out while breaking into your house. Do you kill him while he is helpless or call the police?
Is it evil to kill in this case?
Well, I'd certainly call the police. And yes, in my opinion, it is evil, as he is helpless. Could be Adolf Hitler, would make no difference to me. I'm all Batman about that.
Well, I'd certainly call the police. And yes, in my opinion, it is evil, as he is helpless. Could be Adolf Hitler, would make no difference to me. I'm all Batman about that.So, Hannabel Lector (Epic level rogue) comes to murder (or multilate) you and your family. You are a level 1 commoner. By some miracle he knocks himself out while breaking into your house. Do you kill him while he is helpless or call the police?
Is it evil to kill in this case?
To be fair, a level 1 commoner has a pretty good chance of failing to coup-d-gras a level 20 rogue. And then you just have a guy with 20 hit dice and 8 attacks in your face.
Perhaps, but I would try. If he regains consciousness my family and I are dead or worse. Ever if a platoon of special forces shows up (level 5 soilders) he will cut through them and then come for me. Then he will continue his path of horror.
All the deaths that follows I will be partially responsible for. Imo not trying would be a act of moral cowardice.
Forget that. If he's unconscious, the best method to kill him would be to bypass hit points/saves entirely (unlikely to have a really good Con score). Fill up a bucket with water, shove his head in and drown the bastard (force those Con checks). It might be harsh, but it is effective and I don't play fair in fights. You end the threat, immediately. You have a family to protect, there is no time to be wishy-washy. How you feel about it later can be dealt with later.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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).
Knights often had the right of High, Middle and Low Justice , especially when "beyond the pale"- so in a lawless area, it could even be Lawful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actions can't really be aligned, more intent.
I mean, that behavior can be justified for every alignment.
LG- Torag and Ragathiel anyone? Plenty of LG gods execute people. They tend to be more humane about it, but they just accept that society is better off without the evil. (not my viewpoint, just the justification from these people)
NG- Someone is evil, can't be stopped, or imprisoned. You may have a code of honor that says not to, but you will break it if necessary.
CG- Classic. The one villain that always works within the law, so the law is powerless to stop them. Their freedom from rules likely make them more prone.
LN- Maybe an enemy of the state type deal like Rahadoum. Their existence can only harm the order.
N- If they see it as the only option they will go ahead. Their motives are likely concerned about themself or a loved one.
CN- Yup! See Calistria. They likely wouldn't kill any true innocents, but otherwise would go ahead without a problem.
LE- Unless they promised to look after our care for the prisoners, they have no problem.
NE- Killing the prisoner is always easier anyways.
CE- Yeah...
So, some lawful characters might have an issue, but only if they have a specific code or rule that says they can't. Otherwise they're good.
Many Paladins wouldn't be allowed to, but Paladins don't represent all LG characters.
Weighing in...
It's evil, but so what.
Good people do evil things all the time.
"Let he without sin cast the first stone," as it were.
Depending on the circumstances, I'd be fine with a Paladin killing a prisoner and still getting a clean annual review from his god.
Naturally, if the character was one with a code of conduct (like a Paladin), the best thing to do is be forgiving until you iron out these details with the player and formalize them.
The alignment system is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Even then it's about patterns of behavior and motivation, not specific actions.
So in the meantime, enjoy eating babies.
Weighing in...
It's evil, but so what.
Good people do evil things all the time.
"Let he without sin cast the first stone," as it were.
Depending on the circumstances, I'd be fine with a Paladin killing a prisoner and still getting a clean annual review from his god.
Naturally, if the character was one with a code of conduct (like a Paladin), the best thing to do is be forgiving until you iron out these details with the player and formalize them.The alignment system is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Even then it's about patterns of behavior and motivation, not specific actions.So in the meantime, enjoy eating babies.
Killing/Execution is not evil in Pathfinder, or rather it can't be all the time.
Paladins Cannot willingly commit evil acts but their codes don't prohibit them from executing prisoners. In fact they endorse and facilitate it (they are explicitly told to punish evildoers in the base code, smite evil). Ergo the action cannot be always evil.
Also another thing to consider about the Pathfinder universe, unlike out own world there objectively and without question exists an afterlife where a soul is judged by a practically omniscient entity. Whereas in real life that is by no means an assured reality.
edit (not evil all the time instead of not evil ever)
Killing/Execution is not evil in Pathfinder, or rather it can't be all the time.
I agree when there are exceptional cases like demons & devils who are literally constructed out of pure evil. Even their priests could qualify... so perhaps anything that would make you say "ouch" when using Detect Evil, aka "great evil" would be something that needs to be purged from the world, at least from the perspective of Good.
But in the case of a Goblin, or an Ogre, or a Dwarven bandit, killing a helpless being when you don't have to would be evil. Combat, sure that's fine because you're neutralizing a deadly threat with deadly force. Abandoning helpless prisoners out in the danger zone? It's not nice, and it may lead to their death, but it also may not. Let fate decide. That's more neutral than anything else.
Killing/Execution is not evil in Pathfinder, or rather it can't be all the time.I agree when there are exceptional cases like demons & devils who are literally constructed out of pure evil. Even their priests could qualify... so perhaps anything that would make you say "ouch" when using Detect Evil, aka "great evil" would be something that needs to be purged from the world, at least from the perspective of Good.
But in the case of a Goblin, or an Ogre, or a Dwarven bandit, killing a helpless being when you don't have to would be evil. Combat, sure that's fine because you're neutralizing a deadly threat with deadly force.
What constitutes 'Great evil'? A 20th level Wizard of evil inclination is neither a Devil nor a Demon but they are most certainly evil (and several orders of magnitude more destructive). You're saying if I capture him my only options are let him free and try harder to kill him next time (after he starts trying to kill me or others) or keep him detained until he dies of age? Despite me being capable of knowing without a shadow of a doubt that he is evil (detect alignment or just observing the burning of orphanages).
To that point Goblins and Ogres are evil creatures, they may not be evil outsiders but they are by their nature evil beings. But not evil enough to warrant execution post capture?
What if i'm fighting a creature and it falls unconscious and stabilizes? If I finish off the helpless opponent am I now evil? It's effectively the same thing as having a prisoner just on a compressed timescale. Or does Pathfinder's good and evil have a 5 second rule?
Abandoning helpless prisoners out in the danger zone? It's not nice, and it may lead to their death, but it also may not. Let fate decide. That's more neutral than anything else.
Or evil as you are knowingly releasing an objectively evil creature back out into the world to do more harm. Especially because said creature could have a means to recover. If you actually want fate to decide for them then you can just as well kill them to send them to the goddess of fate, she can sort them out.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Abandoning helpless prisoners out in the danger zone? It's not nice, and it may lead to their death, but it also may not. Let fate decide. That's more neutral than anything else.
No, this is far more evil than just one clean blow to kill them. It should probably be considered torture.
But in the case of a Goblin, or an Ogre, or a Dwarven bandit, killing a helpless being when you don't have to would be evil. Combat, sure that's fine because you're neutralizing a deadly threat with deadly force. Abandoning helpless prisoners out in the danger zone? It's not nice, and it may lead to their death, but it also may not. Let fate decide. That's more neutral than anything else.
Sounds like loophole abuse like an "Evil Genius" would do.
You see, he's just tying you upside-down over a pit of acid, lighting a candle under the rope and letting fate decide. He's not actually killing you...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Abandoning people to die rather than killing them yourself is an act of profound moral cowardice.
You're attempting to declaim responsibility for what happens to them, but you're still responsible for the results of the situation you set up, which are either their death after significantly more pain than necessary or them surviving and potentially going on to commit additional crimes. And you did this why? To keep your own hands clean?
It's the kind of weaselly decision you get from someone who is perfectly willing to let someone die or have them killed but lacks the stomach to do it themselves, and I find it deeply morally repugnant.
I get the argument that executing prisoners at all is Evil. It's objectively wrong in the default Pathfinder setting as presented (again, I reference the LG Empyreal Lord of Executioners), but it's internally consistent. But 'Oh we could just leave them to die'? No. Sins of omission remain sins, and not even necessarily less severe ones.
Leaving someone to die is in all ways worse than just killing them yourself.
If they do die, it will be after considerably more pain than a quick clean death.
If they survive and cause further harm you have failed to resolve the situation and allowed a dangerous individual to continue harming innocents (most likely).
Yeah. Don't do it.
Either execute them, or take them as prisoner someplace. Don't just let them out in the wilderness.
Look at all this attention I'm getting!
Detect Evil
When a mortal rates on the same scale as a significantly dangerous undead or outsider ("Moderate") I'd say they're a pretty cut & dry case for execution. Not out of "Good acts" but out of necessity, to protect the safety and interests of ... well, everyone who's not a walking nightmare.
If "Faint" then it would be less cut & dry, might need to go more case-by-case.
But don't worry, all you who are getting so upset! Evil Undead and Outsiders ("Faint" and upward) are obviously kosher for sating your bloodlust.
Look... I know how much you want to justify hacking up defenseless people with your axe as virtuous and righteous. Or perhaps stabbing the bound and gagged victim while they scream is more to your liking (go for the lower back to induce sepsis). Or a good ol' beheading! We know how popular those are these days. Just think of all the orphanages that haven't burned down yet and trust me it'll feel good.
But don't leave them tied up... that's cowardly! That's torture!
Far more dignified to end that begging and pleading with a crossbow bolt to the face, or string them up and slit their throat like a pig... or drown them, so you can feel their final, feeble struggles before their life ends in your hands. That's far more kind and brave. I'm sure you'll sleep well that night remembering how that felt. Or you should hear how the N.Korean military does it. It's as ruthless and cold as it gets, both messy and clean at the same time. But you need automatic weapons (and a burlap sack) to do it, so I guess that's a Starfinder thing.
All this talk about morality and cowardice, and we're comparing the butchery of helpless prisoners to just leaving them tied up on the battlefield?
Puh-leaz!
Okay... all fun and games aside, prisoners on the battlefield, far from courts and law and jails, are a problem best resolved by accepting one key fact:
There are probably no "good" options.
You're either methodically killing a helpless and terrified being who is begging for their life (via horrific violence when you stop and think for more than 5 seconds), releasing an enemy and potential danger & threat into the wild, or abandoning a helpless being while they are helpless.
None of them are GOOD. None.
Better to just crush them in combat and walk away. That's far cleaner, and more understandable.
If you need prisoners (such as to get info), realize that you're going to have to get into a very morally repugnant (thanks Deadmanwalking) situation, and make a choice that any sane person wouldn't ever want to live with.
Don't lie to yourself.
And if it's a Paladin or some other "thou shalt not" character, please please please formalize the code of conduct with the GM. And if you're a GM for such a character, it's your job to be crystal clear regarding such matters. If you haven't ironed out these details yet, you had best err in favor of the player's opinion because it's THEIR character, not yours.
I'm sure it's been said previously, but this (Pathfinder) is a world where PEOPLE have alignments. Not LG or CN or NE tendencies. Existence-defining alignments. This is not our world. The rules should not be the same.
In my opinion.
In some instances, killing a prisoner might be considered a *mercy*.
Example 1: Person is dying of Ghoul Rot, every knows it, no one has the resources to save them, and they want their body burnt so they don't come back.
Example 2: Person has been threatened with not a quick clean death but a long lingering tortuous death for them AND their families by their leader for failure.
Example 3: In hostile lands, having been patched up and given a modicum of food and then left to fend for themselves may be more of a painful horrible death sentence than outright ending a person.
Example 4: They know, that for whatever reason, they cannot control a compulsion that is compelling them to perform the acts they are performing, and there is no hope for a cure, and are asking for this treatment themselves in the field.
That being said, it should definitely be one of those soul-searching sorts of moments for folks at a table, that could determine the course of an entire character (if not an entire campaign) developmental arc.
"Morally Repugnant" does not automatically equal [Evil] in Pathfinder, the rules of the world are simply not the same. Morality and Alignment are separate beasts, there is some overlap but they are separate.
The game is explicitly about killing things and looting the corspes. The game also explicitly has [Good] aligned PC's who are expected and all but required to kill things as their main form of progression. In the case of divine classes you become more [Good] by killing things (your alignment aura gets stronger you get access to higher tier magics). Killing things is not automatically an [Evil] act in the Pathfinder universe. [Good] and [Evil] objectively exist in Pathfinder and both are allowed to kill.
|
|
I'm sure it's been said previously, but this (Pathfinder) is a world where PEOPLE have alignments. Not LG or CN or NE tendencies. Existence-defining alignments. This is not our world. The rules should not be the same.
In my opinion.
This is, in fact, explicitly untrue. Alignment is purely descriptive, not prescriptive. It changes as you act in different ways and simply defines where the sum of your actions and decisions have left you.
The only partial exception is Alignment Subtype Outsiders, and even for them a change in alignment based on their actions is possible.
"Morally Repugnant" does not automatically equal [Evil] in Pathfinder, the rules of the world are simply not the same. Morality and Alignment are separate beasts, there is some overlap but they are separate.
For the record, I strongly disagree with this. In Pathfinder, Alignment is an objective reflection of how morally a character has behaved and in what manner. Without meaning something like that, it ceases to have purpose and should be removed.
The game is explicitly about killing things and looting the corspes. The game also explicitly has [Good] aligned PC's who are expected and all but required to kill things as their main form of progression. In the case of divine classes you become more [Good] by killing things (your alignment aura gets stronger you get access to higher tier magics). Killing things is not automatically an [Evil] act in the Pathfinder universe. [Good] and [Evil] objectively exist in Pathfinder and both are allowed to kill.
This is flatly and objectively untrue. You get experience for overcoming challenges. Period. Nothing about killing or violence at all. It is indisputably possible to achieve 20th level entirely by social interaction and persuasion.
That's not very likely for PCs, but that's an artifact of the players and GMs wanting to use the game's well developed combat system not the world requiring you to kill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is flatly and objectively untrue. You get experience for overcoming challenges. Period. Nothing about killing or violence at all. It is indisputably possible to achieve 20th level entirely by social interaction and persuasion.
That's not very likely for PCs, but that's an artifact of the players and GMs wanting to use the game's well developed combat system not...
The game explicitly outlines that you are expected to be mainly participating in combat as per the CRB. Yes you CAN do it through other means but the game does not expect that or set that expectation with it's rules and systems but it's very explicit that the game is a combat centric monster blender.
The heart of any adventure is its encounters. An encounter is any event that puts a specific problem before the PCs that they must solve. Most encounters present combat with monsters or hostile NPCs, but there are many other types—a trapped corridor, a political interaction with a suspicious king, a dangerous passage over a rickety rope bridge, an awkward argument with a friendly NPC who suspects a PC has betrayed him, or anything that adds drama to the game. Brain-teasing puzzles, roleplaying challenges, and skill checks are all classic methods for resolving encounters, but the most complex encounters to build are the most common ones—combat encounters.
This is, in fact, explicitly untrue. Alignment is purely descriptive, not prescriptive. It changes as you act in different ways and simply defines where the sum of your actions and decisions have left you.I'm sure it's been said previously, but this (Pathfinder) is a world where PEOPLE have alignments. Not LG or CN or NE tendencies. Existence-defining alignments. This is not our world. The rules should not be the same.
In my opinion.
Firstly, I ended with "In my opinion." So, no, it is true. Explicitly. Because I explained that it's my opinion.
And even if is fluid and descriptive, it is still defining. Or do detect spells not work nearly as effectively as I thought they did? If a lawful evil tyrant is thinking thoughts about feeding his infant prince son because he's hungry, is he not going to register as evil from detect evil at that moment? I'm not being rude. I'm actually curious...
Anyway, we're roleplaying characters in situations sometimes involving decision-making incredibly alien to what most of us go through in our real lives, in a world that somewhat mirrors our own but also has drastic differences, and on top of all that is a game. RPG, after all.
So I just don't think there can be a 1:1 equivalency of these two worlds.
By the way, I'm not even defending killing a prisoner. My personal ruling is probably that it's in such a gray area that it's well, neutral. One time anyway. Make it a an established habit, and that may become an issue.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly, I ended with "In my opinion." So, no, it is true. Explicitly. Because I explained that it's my opinion.
If you say 'In my opinion, the sky is neon pink.' you are in fact wrong. Merely stating something as an opinion does not mean nobody can point out areas where you are factually incorrect. This example is less obvious and severe than that one by quite a bit, but the point stands.
And Pathfinder has actually repeatedly and fairly explicitly noted alignment as descriptive, not prescriptive.
And even if is fluid and descriptive, it is still defining. Or do detect spells not work nearly as effectively as I thought they did? If a lawful evil tyrant is thinking thoughts about feeding his infant prince son because he's hungry, is he not going to register as evil from detect evil at that moment? I'm not being rude. I'm actually curious...
Well, actually, to quote Detect Evil:
Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
And all the other detect spells say they work exactly like Detect Evil. So...if an Evil person is currently intending to commit a Good act they'll detect as Good if you use Detect Good on them, as the act in question pings the spell.
They will also detect as Evil due to their Alignment, since nothing stops that, but the line isn't quite as clear as you seem to be saying it is.
Anyway, we're roleplaying characters in situations sometimes involving decision-making incredibly alien to what most of us go through in our real lives, in a world that somewhat mirrors our own but also has drastic differences, and on top of all that is a game. RPG, after all.
So I just don't think there can be a 1:1 equivalency of these two worlds.
Why not? I mean, sure, you're likely not gonna be in a position where you have a choice of killing prisoners or letting them go, with no meaningful ability to imprison them or turn them over to the proper authorities, but there are people in the real world right now who do sometimes have to make decisions like that. It's not nearly as alien a situation as you're implying.
Yes, it's a game, and you can absolutely just not have stuff like this come up (I've played games where the enemy mostly just die outright for precisely that reason)...but if it does, what you say is moral to do in regards to it is defining to the morality of the world. And that's pretty relevant if anyone at all cares about that (which at least one person usually will).
By the way, I'm not even defending killing a prisoner. My personal ruling is probably that it's in such a gray area that it's well, neutral. One time anyway. Make it a an established habit, and that may become an issue.
I am actually defending killing certain categories of prisoner as a Neutral act. I'm just noting my profound disagreement with you in regards to what Alignment is. And the game pretty much supports me in this.
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 ?
To answer the question most directly, it is not chaotic good.
However as we have seen it isn't inherently evil, and depending on GM discretion has the potential for being seen as neutral.Not So Short Answer
As a DM for quick reference in moral actions between good/evil I look at how the PC values life. If they are evil, others lives have little value, if they are good others lives are highly protected.
Next, look at the action itself, then track record, if this is the 3rd time they have done such a thing, being good isn't for them.
However everyone has moral obstacles they encounter and sometimes stumble with...ultimately DM is God.
@Deadmanwalking
Alright. I see your points. I meant it being my opinion can't be wrong, not the statement itself, but I see that's not what you meant. No worries.
|
|
I would go further than just calling it a neutral act. If a paladin of Iomedea, together with her party, catches an evil cultist in the process of sacrificing a human being to an evil deity far out in the wilderness and because the wizard uses color spray the cultist is taken prisoner, it would be a lawful good act for that paladin to give the prisoner a chance to explain himself, and then behead him after handing down a sentence. Lawful, because it is defending the principle of 'you may not sacrifice sentient beings to an evil deity' and good because it's defending the life of all the possible future innocent victims of the cultist.
Okay, cool. Glad we got that cleared up, then.@Deadmanwalking
Alright. I see your points. I meant it being my opinion can't be wrong, not the statement itself, but I see that's not what you meant. No worries.
I actually have a favor to ask, that is entirely unrelated, and depends on your knowledge of game mechanics. I only bring it up because you seem knowledgeable about Pathfinder.
|
|
I actually have a favor to ask, that is entirely unrelated, and depends on your knowledge of game mechanics. I only bring it up because you seem knowledgeable about Pathfinder.Okay, cool. Glad we got that cleared up, then.@Deadmanwalking
Alright. I see your points. I meant it being my opinion can't be wrong, not the statement itself, but I see that's not what you meant. No worries.
I, too, am totally cool with you PMing me any rules questions you may have.
My point was not that the game doesn't encourage combat. It clearly does.
My point was that the world didn't do so (since XP awards are equal regardless of how you solve a problem), except as a matter of practicality if you're attacked. Which is also true.
Right. I was speaking to how the rules system is a means by which characters are represented in the game world. And within that system Character can be both [Good] and commit literal genocide against entire races of monsters while still remaining [Good]. Ergo the act of killing cannot be an automatically [Evil] act in Pathfinder universe.