|
You can choose that "Killing a prisoner is not evil" in your games, and that's fine.
I take the exact opposite position. Killing a prisoner is always evil. If an adventurer out in wilderness kills a defeated opponent whose surrender she accepted because it would be inconvenient to haul a prisoner around, that’s a Chaotic Evil act. If a duly appointed executioner beheads a prisoner who was convicted and condemned in a flawlessly conducted trial that provided impeccable due process, that’s a Lawful Evil act. Either act is Evil, and vary only in their relation to the Law/Chaos axis of Alignment.
|
|
take this monster back to society for a "trial" where they're almost certain to kill it". It feels like a catch 22.
Similarly to what I said before, taking a captive back to society for a trial (with or without scare quotes) that is likely to result in the captive’s execution strikes me as an evil act, no better or worse than killing the surrendered opponent on the spot.
As the GM you get to decide if a monster surrenders in the first place, and if they're going to try and escape and harm the party in some manner. And telling me that if I don't take the enemy accept the risk that it makes me evil...well it just feels kind of s*$*ty.
That’s why when, as a GM, I have enemies surrender, I almost totally handwaive any complications that result. I want to GM a table where PCs are basically heroic, and killing sentient creatures that aren’t an immediate threat never feels heroic to me.
|
|
Just to point out that being Lawful doesn't always mean that you have to follow the laws of the particular place you are currently at.
Being lawful could mean follwoing the rules of a deity, the rules of your state, and etc.
Agreed, but the decision whether to follow the laws of your location is still more a question on the Law/Chaos axis than on the Good/Evil axis, though Good/Evil isn’t totally Irrelevant.
A Lawful character who chooses to prioritize some other code of conduct above the local law is takes a different path than the Chaotic character who simply doesn’t care about the local law, even if they both wind up in the same place, and that place they wind up may be Good or Evil.
Now, on to the actual point in hand, surrendering for selfish reasons is always going to be problematic for a paladin imo....
To some extent choosing to play a Paladin signals the GM that the player is interested in grappling with this sort of problem, though the extent of that interest is probably a good topic for some Session Zero discussion.
Someone has to play a Cleric, but no one has to play a Champion, so picking that class seems like volunteering to dive into the alignment system.
|
|
If the paladin lets him leave alive simply means that he failed to strike down evil to me.
The Champion’s Code class feature states “ You follow a code of conduct, beginning with tenets shared by all champions of an alignment (such as good), and continuing with tenets of your cause. Deities often add additional strictures (for instance, Torag’s champions can’t show mercy to enemies of their people, making it almost impossible for them to follow the redeemer cause).”
To the extent that a deity’s strictures require the murder of captives, I’m pretty comfortable with the position that, like a Torag and a Redeemer, we may just have an incompatibility with Good-Aligned Championhood.
Again, though, no one has to pick the Champion class, and certainly no on has to pick the Champion class AND to be a worshiper of Saranrae, so making those choices is arguably a signal that a player is interested in grappling with this sort of dilemma.
That said, the G in Saranrae’s alignment means that I don’t really buy that she wants her worshippers murdering captives, so that scenario must not be what “fail to strike down evil” means.
|
|
take this monster back to society for a "trial" where they're almost certain to kill it". It feels like a catch 22.Similarly to what I said before, taking a captive back to society for a trial (with or without scare quotes) that is likely to result in the captive’s execution strikes me as an evil act, no better or worse than killing the surrendered opponent on the spot.
By this logic, bringing a petty thief to justice would be far better than bringing a serial killer because the latter's punishment is highly likely to be much harsher.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone has to play a Cleric, but no one has to play a Champion, so picking that class seems like volunteering to dive into the alignment system.
What????
|
|
Killing a prisoner might not be Good, but that does not make it automatically Evil.
I agree that "not Good" is not necessarily Evil, but I can't think of any circumstance in which killing a prisoner is not Evil.
By this logic, bringing a petty thief to justice would be far better than bringing a serial killer because the latter's punishment is highly likely to be much harsher.
No so much "better" as "not Evil" assuming that the serial killer's punishment is likely to be execution. Though I'd take issue with the notion that one can bring anyone "to justice" if they are likely to be killed while under color of law while held prisoner.
|
|
Someone has to play a Cleric, but no one has to play a Champion, so picking that class seems like volunteering to dive into the alignment system.What????
There's often social pressure for someone at the table to play a Cleric, which is a class that, RAW, inherently involves some level of interaction with questions of Alignment because the various deities literally only grant spells to creatures who belong to particular alignments. But since there's often social pressure for someone to play a Cleric, I don't necessarily interpret a player's choice to play a Cleric as a signal that they're interested in alignment issues.
I've never really heard of pressure for someone to play a Champion, the class that is most tied to the alignment rules. Since there's no social pressure to play a Champion, I think it's fair to say that choosing the class with the most alignment restrictions is probably a signal that the player is interested in interacting with that set of issues. If all you want is a high AC, you can play a Monk. If all you want is to be a knight in shining armor, you can play a Fighter. If all you want is a warrior who has a little magic for flavor, pick up a spellcasting archetype or some ancestry feats for innate spells. If you're choosing Champion, you're choosing a class defined by alignment restrictions.
|
|
1. if the party was fighting some enemies and discovered some were still alive but unconscious after the battle, would it be evil to coup de grace them?
My take? That'd be evil.
I basically won't GM for players who routinely have their PCs go around intentionally killing downed enemies. And unless there's a pretty clear and specific reason (a bunch of Death Knells or similar abilities in the published stat block, priests of Norgorber or the like, a carnivorous ooze left alone with a dying PC while the others run away, maybe a literal starving animal), my bad guys don't do it either. If my players see a sentient bad guy I run targeting a downed character that's a pretty clear signal that it's a seriously depraved enemy.
Also, I pretty routinely track dying values even on minion types, giving my players the option to stabilize them rather than just letting them bleed to death after a fight.
2. if the party was fighting some enemies and discovered some were still alive but unconscious after the battle, would it be evil to interrogate them and execute/turn them over for trial/execution if the prisoners have done horrible things?
Interrogate? Not evil, assuming we're not talking about torture or something similar.
Turn them over for trial? Not evil, assuming that the PCs aren't knowingly turning them over to a corrupt system.
Turn them over for execution? Evil. The more likely the execution, the more Evil.
3. if you have a surrendered enemy and instead of killing them you banish them to a phase locked timeless dimension that no one can ever access again (so they're in suspended animation for eternity), is that okay since you didn't kill them?
That's difficult to answer in a Pathfinder context, because Pathfinder has an objective afterlife, and undeath is a thing, and death isn't necessarily permanent, and probably some other factors I'm not thinking of right now.
But, setting those issues aside, assuming that suspended animation isn't some sort of "And you're awake the whole time and go mad over the eons" deal, then that's marginally less evil than killing them because it's theoretically reversible. But the more foolproof the suspended animation is, the less meaningful the distinction from just killing the prisoner.
|
|
i just pointed out a situation where letting go of the prisoner alive would be evil:
he has not repented, and as soon as he is let go he will go on killing people.
I'm disagreeing that this is not Evil.
by not stopping him, for good, aren't you propagating his evil?
No. I don't believe that mercy equates to complicity. I believe that it is morally sufficient to prevent him from killing while you're able and hand him over to authorities who won't kill him, but are reasonably likely to be able to imprison. He, not you, bears the moral weight of his future actions.
Do you also let go of liches if they go "i surrender?"
First off, I'm not sure that I buy the binary of "let the prisoner go" or "murder the prisoner," certainly not in general. But at the very least, I'm talking about not killing enemies who are captured, which doesn't just mean "they go "i surrender[/.]" It's reasonable to consider whether we're discussing a genuine surrender or perfidy.
I mean, any neutral or good state will immediately destroy them if they can
While many neutral or good states probably would immediately destroy any Lich if able, I'm not sure any would. It doesn't seem all that crazy to me to imagine intelligent Undead being tolerated in more cosmopolitan locations.
so your only "non-evil" option is to let go of the lich as soon as it says the magic words?
Not just saying "the magic words," but convincing the PCs of its sincerity.
Using a Lich as an example complicates things a bit, because in Pathfinder it is objectively true that Undead "were infused after death with . . . soul-corrupting evil magic[,]" which seems meaningfully different than literally any living creature. Note, too, that "When reduced to 0 Hit Points, an undead creature is destroyed" not killed, because an undead creature is already dead. So I'm not sure that destroying a Lich even has the same moral weight as killing a living being. But for the sake of discussion, lets just consider the case of the surrendering Lich.
A Lich is a 12th level creature, with a Deception bonus of +17. That gives an average result of 27.5 on its check to offer a false surrender. A Lich is sort of a boss monster type, so lets assume it's facing a party of 9th level PCs, and for the sake of simplicity one made up of the classic four classes. At 9th level:
Cleric: Perception = Expert 13 + 4 Wis (very likely)= DC 27
Fighter: Perception = Master 15 + 1 Wis (seems reasonable) = DC 26
Rogue: Perception = Master 15 + 2 Wis (seems reasonable) = DC 27
Wizard: Perception = Trained 11 + 1 Wis (seems reasonable) = DC 21
So at first blush, the Lich has a 55% chance to fool everyone, and an 85% chance to take in that credulous Wizard, but note that Lie states that "The GM might give them a circumstance bonus based on the situation and the nature of the lie you are trying to tell." The Cleric is at least Trained in Religion, so she, at least, knows that Undead are animated by soul-corrupting energy, and I have a hard time believing that the whole group hasn't picked that up, which I think makes this lie Hard, which Adjusting Difficulty says is worth +2. Now the odds have turned, and the Lich only has a 45% chance of fooling the entire party.
I think it's highly unlikely that a 9th level party that can effectively fight a Lich to the point that its surrender is even remotely plausible isn't going to know about rejuvination, which renders the lie even more ridiculous. Honestly I'd call that Incredibly Hard for a +10, but in the spirit of discussion, I think we can agree that it's at least Very Hard for +5. Now the Lich's odds of fooling everyone are down to 30%.
All that's ignores any item bonus to Perception in the party, at least one of which seems reasonable to expect, and it ignores the Lie to Me skill feat, which I wouldn't be shocked to see boosting the Rogue's DC by a point if she prioritizes Charisma over Wisdom.
Honestly, in practice, I'd almost certainly give the +10 to the lie DC for a Lich trying to surrender, because the lie strikes me as utterly ridiculous, and likely renders it impossible on any result but a Nat 20.
There's often social pressure for someone at the table to play a Cleric, which is a class that, RAW, inherently involves some level of interaction with questions of Alignment because the various deities literally only grant spells to creatures who belong to particular alignments. But since there's often social pressure for someone to play a Cleric, I don't necessarily interpret a player's choice to play a Cleric as a signal that they're interested in alignment issues.
Ok, we don't play at the same tables, obviously. I'd ask my players why they are pushing others to play something. Even if I fully agree that sometimes, for the sake of balance, there could be social pressure but limiting it to the Cleric class is a bit strange when there are so many classes out there that can fill the same niche (from the top of my head, you have at least Sorcerer, (non Wild) Druid, Oracle and Medic Dedication).
We are talking about surrender without repentance. Basically evil creatures that simply surrender to save their bacon but do not plan to change their ways.
There's no need to lie at all. They can surrender, honestly surrender, and plan their next big evil plot for when they get free/escape/whatever.
But the surrender is then a plot hook. It's not a bunch of orcs in the wilderness that surrender, it's the big bad evil guy at the end of the dungeon?
and what if that surrender comes at the end of the dungeon?
Then it's a plot hook. So what happens is mostly up to the GM and the players.
And going back to the "bunch of orcs" point. Does Evil have grades in the eyes of a champion of Good? Does it matter if the Evil will hurt a dozen people or a few hundreds?
That's not my point. My point is: You don't make the small orcs surrender because it's a story no one wants to hear. If the GM does that just to generate artificial moral conundrums then I suggest a conversation with them about their expectations.
|
|
limiting it to the Cleric class is a bit strange when there are so many classes out there that can fill the same niche
There honestly may be a greater emphasis on Clerics at tables I’be experienced than there needs to be, but we’ve also never seen an effective non-healer Cleric, but that’s probably because the player who builds the most effective characters among the groups I GM has always played a Cleric when he took the healer role. When other players have taken that role with non-Clerics, there’s been difficulty.
|
|
We are talking about surrender without repentance. Basically evil creatures that simply surrender to save their bacon but do not plan to change their ways.
I’m not worrying about repentance, though. I’m worrying about surrender and the immediate threat, not what they might do at some hypothetical point in the future. If they stop fighting, are either genuinely not a current threat or make you believe they’re genuinely not a current threat, I believe it’s an Evil act to kill them.
There's no need to lie at all. They can surrender, honestly surrender, and plan their next big evil plot for when they get free/escape/whatever.
Okay, this is just the old bit that blames Batman for all of the Joker’s crimes because Batman could have murdered the Joker years ago. I don’t buy that. But beyond not buying that, I think that perspective is pretty antithetical to heroic fantasy, which is what I’m looking for from Pathfinder, though I get that heroic fantasy is not the mood everyone is looking for from Pathfinder.
|
|
Well, the context for this whole conversation (originally) was about Sarenrae's anathema "create undead, lie, deny a repentant creature an opportunity for redemption, and fail to strike down evil." (Specifically about the line where failing to strike down evil is drawn.)
I briefly addressed that earlier.
[T]he G in Saranrae’s alignment means that I don’t really buy that she wants her worshippers murdering captives, so that scenario must not be what “fail to strike down evil” means.
Accept a surrender, determine if they can be redeemed, and execute them if they cannot. That's a perfectly reasonable course of action, and not evil.
I agree that it’s a perfectly reasonable course of action, but it’s also Evil, and if it was a common event, I believe it would cause a Champion to fall. Recall that the Champion class description explicitly states that “Torag’s champions can’t show mercy to enemies of their people, making it almost impossible for them to follow the redeemer cause[.]” To the extent that Saranrae requires her worshippers to slaughter captives, I am seeing the same incompatibility with the Champion class.
Obviously if one doesn’t consider murdering the helpless to be Evil, one is going to not consider it an issue for Champions.
|
|
A paladin cares for far more than just saving their own ass.
Something not being an immediate threat to the paladin doesn't at all mean that it's not a threat to innocent people.
I didn’t specify an immediate threat to the Paladin. A surrendered villain is no threat to innocent people. If the villain is still threatening innocent people, that isn’t surrender, that’s perfidy.
If you willingly ignore that evil
If only there were nearly infinite options other than “ignore evil” and “murder helpless captives.” But alas, we’re stuck with an absurdly false dichotomy.
just because it is inconvenient to you,
Inconvenient? Are you seriously arguing that it’s more convenient to take and maintain a prisoner than it is to murder them without consequence?
I'd count that as a breach of your anathema.
What anathema in particular?
I'd say that slaying the evil dragon is much more heroic than simply letting them go when you knock it unconscious for them to simply go torch the next village when they regain consciousness.
Slitting the throats of the unconscious is your idea of heroic?
Who said anything about “simply letting them go when you knock them unconscious”? Why are these the only two options you can imagine?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's sort of ironic how the OP talks about wanting advice so they don't trap the player in some obnoxious morality trap.
And now the thread's descended into people setting up obnoxious morality traps for Champions.
|
|
So you failed to strike down evil, that's the anathema the champion broke in my games.
If we assume, as you do, that Saranrae requires the murder of non-combatants, then I suppose it is an anathema broken to fail to cut a throat. That's a problem, though, because Paladins are also required to follow the tenets of good, one of which is a prohibition on "willingly commit[ting] an evil act, such as murder[.]" So, just as "Torag’s champions can’t show mercy to enemies of their people, making it almost impossible for them to follow the redeemer cause[,]" it appears that it will be almost impossible for Saranrae's champions to follow the paladin or redeemer cause. Maybe we'll get those Neutral causes soon, though.
As for trying to make it sound like I'm not giving choice to the scenario, you are simply ignoring my actual posts.
I didn't say you're not giving a choice, I recognize that you're offering the player the choice between murdering a non-combatant and losing his character's Paladinhood.
the correct answer from the Champion, in my games, simply is "Surrender isn't accepted, die".
Your game, your call, but I'd call that murder, and a pretty clear violation the tenets of good. But it does save the Champion the inconvenience of having to take care of a prisoner, so bonus, I suppose.
|
|
People seem to have some aversion to being judge of another person's life, but that's just people dodging responsibility. Its not evil to execute a criminal for a crime that warrants death.
It's my position that it is, in fact, evil to execute anyone.
And its not evil to make the determination that someone is deserving of death for being evil.
I'd agree. It's acting on that determination, including participating in a system that acts on that determination, that that is evil.
I do see some interesting choice of language. I say "Execute prisoner" and you say "murder the helpless" "slaughter captives".
But those are all different things.
We can probably agree that "prisoner" and "captive" are close enough to be of no practical difference. I disagree that "execute" and "murder" are different things, in a moral sense, at least -- obviously they're different in a legal sense, but this discussion is pretty clearly about Good/Evil, not Lawful/Chaotic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whereas I think you are reading more into the morality of the system than is actually there.
It is not as defined as you say.
Everyone has different ideas. That's OK. Just let me know at the table and I'll be fine. I can have a lot of fun in an odd morality system. It's called role playing.
If your way is too offensive (unlikely) or just not interesting which frankly may be worse, then I'll play a character without Divine entanglements.
|
|
We are talking about surrender without repentance. Basically evil creatures that simply surrender to save their bacon but do not plan to change their ways.I’m not worrying about repentance, though. I’m worrying about surrender and the immediate threat, not what they might do at some hypothetical point in the future. If they stop fighting, are either genuinely not a current threat or make you believe they’re genuinely not a current threat, I believe it’s an Evil act to kill them.
There's no need to lie at all. They can surrender, honestly surrender, and plan their next big evil plot for when they get free/escape/whatever.Okay, this is just the old bit that blames Batman for all of the Joker’s crimes because Batman could have murdered the Joker years ago. I don’t buy that. But beyond not buying that, I think that perspective is pretty antithetical to heroic fantasy, which is what I’m looking for from Pathfinder, though I get that heroic fantasy is not the mood everyone is looking for from Pathfinder.
Actually, your definition of heroic fantasy is very specific.
I'm pretty sure the "Failing to strike down evil" clause is in order to prevent you from taking a payoff from the bad guy in exchange for allowing them to keep doing what they're doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, your definition of heroic fantasy is very specific.All I’m really talking about here is the good guys not killing non-combatants. I’d say that leaves enough room for a sufficient variety of stories to not be “very specific.”
Well it specifically precludes the stories where the righteous Paladin kills the evil cleric Asmodeus who had been trying to kill him right up until the moment it became clear that he could not win, and then decided to try to force the paladin's hand by surrendering.
Good is not Nice. Good has no obligation to accept the surrender of evil. Especially when good cannot control or monitor that evil to ensure they do not commit more evil.
And I do subscribe to the theory of morality that repeatedly letting the Joker go to jail where he consistently escapes is a moral failing of Batman's. He is not obligated to kill him necessarily, but I think after a few times it's justified to do. Alternatively finding/funding superior methods of incarceration would be viable. But even then if he continues to escape, at a certain point I still say it's on Batman for not ending the threat.
I'm pretty sure the "Failing to strike down evil" clause is in order to prevent you from taking a payoff from the bad guy in exchange for allowing them to keep doing what they're doing.
Pretty much. I read the clause as meaning that you're obligated to not be ambivalent about it. It doesn't mean chasing down every misgiving, ignoring your priorities, or twisting anything up. It just means that if you're in a position to stop a bad guy, you should. In terms of situations where this might be an issue, I feel like the anathema would come up most obviously in 'lesser of two evils' scenarios, where a devotee of Sarenrae might not see the notion of letting one bad guy go in order to make it easier to capture another bad guy to be a good idea. IMO.
But these scenarios where you fall for not executing someone or where you're obligated to care for a prisoner for some arbitrary period of time all seem like the exact kind of tiring morality traps that the OP and anathema rules in general want to avoid and therefore kinda dumb.
And I do subscribe to the theory of morality that repeatedly letting the Joker go to jail where he consistently escapes is a moral failing of Batman's.
Insisting on making good things even when experience pushes you to the dark side? I hardly see how it can be a moral failing, it's actually the issue of being good: Sometimes, you are powerless because seizing power and shaping the world the way you want by ignoring everything but your own judgment is clearly a neatly paved path to hell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i think it's mostly a law vs chaos thing rather than good vs evil thing.
the law doesn't give batman the authority to judge. the lawful thing is turning joker to the authorities, and the authorities put joker in jail.
a Neutral Good character cares much less about what the law says about execution and who the legitimate authorities are, he cares more that he deals with the Evil.
Exactly.
Batman doesn't kill joker because he wants to be "lawful" in the sense of turning the Joker over to the justice system, a system that repeatedly shows that is incapable of dealing with the Joker.
The first time I don't blame Batman. Probably not the second time. But eventually, I blame Batman for not doing something better than turning him over to Gotham authorities. And don't get me wrong, I also blame everyone in Gotham justice system too, but Batman is the one who is in the best position to end the threat. And after it becomes clear that Gotham is incapable of neutralizing the threat to the public, a Good Batman would do what is best for the citizens of Gotham. A lawful Batman (or at least one that values law over good) would continue to turn Joker over.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think it makes Batman evil. But it makes Batman not good. I probably shouldn't have phrased that as moral failing, but such behavior is Not Good. At least in my opinion.
Remember, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing. Batman isn't doing nothing, but he's not doing what is reasonably within his power to protect the people of Gotham from a persistent and deadly threat.
Edit: To expand on this a little more, I do think a Lawful Good character after finding that the legitimate authorities cannot handle a threat is morally justified in executing someone like the Joker. A LG character should try to hand over someone to the justice system and not take it into their own hands, but after finding the system cannot deal with them they should be okay with executing the individual themselves.
Remember, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing. Batman isn't doing nothing, but he's not doing what is reasonably within his power to protect the people of Gotham from a persistent and deadly threat.
Can you give examples of what Batman should do? Because otherwise I don't see what you think about.
Remember, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing. Batman isn't doing nothing, but he's not doing what is reasonably within his power to protect the people of Gotham from a persistent and deadly threat.Can you give examples of what Batman should do? Because otherwise I don't see what you think about.
Well, the easiest one is kill the Joker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the easiest one is kill the Joker.Remember, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing. Batman isn't doing nothing, but he's not doing what is reasonably within his power to protect the people of Gotham from a persistent and deadly threat.Can you give examples of what Batman should do? Because otherwise I don't see what you think about.
Which is definitely evil, you know?
Which is definitely evil, you know?Well, the easiest one is kill the Joker.Remember, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing. Batman isn't doing nothing, but he's not doing what is reasonably within his power to protect the people of Gotham from a persistent and deadly threat.Can you give examples of what Batman should do? Because otherwise I don't see what you think about.
It's definitely not.
Or rather I should say it depends on your version of morality.
To me it's definitely not lawful. Probably chaotic. But killing an evil person who has repeatedly demonstrated a refusal to change their ways, one who consistently escapes incarceration and continues to kill people IS Good. It is probably the best representation of Neutral Good.
At least in my book.
"You shall not kill" is certainly the most shared rule among cultures all around the world. It is definitely evil.
Now, I don't say that there are no nuances. Killing a bunch of innocent is more evil than killing an evil you don't find a way to deal with otherwise. But it's still always evil.
So, when your solution to "make good" is to kill, I get back to your paved path to hell. Using good intentions as justifications for evil behavior is evil.
Now, we can agree on having different version of morality, as it's certainly the case. And there are still situations where it's "ok to kill" around us. In general, the more time goes and the less there are. But there are still some.
"You shall not kill" is certainly the most shared rule among cultures all around the world. It is definitely evil.
Now, I don't say that there are no nuances. Killing a bunch of innocent is more evil than killing an evil you don't find a way to deal with otherwise. But it's still always evil.So, when your solution to "make good" is to kill, I get back to your paved path to hell. Using good intentions as justifications for evil behavior is evil.
Now, we can agree on having different version of morality, as it's certainly the case. And there are still situations where it's "ok to kill" around us. In general, the more time goes and the less there are. But there are still some.
I don't subscribe to that moral axiom. As you say, there is nuance. But that doesn't make killing evil in all circumstances. I'll agree that it's almost never good, although I would argue that killing unrepentant evil is actually good. And within the context of the game world, that seems to be true. Otherwise, angles wouldn't be killing devils, demons so often.
I don't subscribe to that moral axiom. As you say, there is nuance. But that doesn't make killing evil in all circumstances. I'll agree that it's almost never good, although I would argue that killing unrepentant evil is actually good. And within the context of the game world, that seems to be true. Otherwise, angles wouldn't be killing devils, demons so often.
War is one of these rare cases where killing is accepted. Still, war is definitely not good.
Now, we can agree to disagree. Morality is a complex matter and I don't think either of us is really qualified in the domain.
I don't disagree that war isn't good. I don't disagree that under 99% circumstances killing isn't good, but just because something isn't good doesn't make it evil.
To be honest though, I don't accept "qualified in the domain" to be a thing when it comes to questioning moral philosophies. Sure, I'm don't have a philosopher degree. I probably cannot write out a simple outline on my views. But I don't think that disqualifies anyone from discussing morality.
I will however agree morality is a complex matter, and we are unlikely to change our views to agree with one another.