Post/Author/DateTime	Post
curan69 09-07-05, 12:28 PM	Let me preface this by saying i know my DM frequents these boards. This isnt an attempt to challenge his ruling but to find out the opinions of others, and i expect to get many conflicting answers. let me set the stage. Our first level party is camped in the woods. At night we are attacked by a party of goblins. No one dies but some of our partyare wounded ( almost dying we are 1st level after all) A few of the goblins manage to escape running off into the woods. later the SAME night we awake to the sound of more movement in the woods. A goblin who speaks common announces that we will pay for the "death of the brothers and cousins" and the goblins attack. most of the goblins are killed including the big mouthed leader and a bugbear who was with them. Here is where the question comes from...... The remaining two goblins start to flee into the woods( for the second time), weapons in hand. Our "good" Barbarian announces she is going to take a shot at one of the goblins. The DM reminds her that she is good and that attacking the fleeing goblins would be an evil act. So what do you think?
JimRuh 09-07-05, 12:43 PM	I'll say not an evil act. A Chaotic act yes, but not evil. A Paladin would be hard pressed to kill the fleeing goblin, but that has to do with lawful more than good or evil. If the DM were to follow the line of thinking, then every Dwarf who defends his home against goblins is committing an evil act. Just be cause they run away doesn't automatically make the war over. It would be the differnce between a kight following honor and codes facing his enemy squarely and the chaotic dwarves making sure that their invaders remember what it cost to attack their home. A noble knight will allow you to pick up a dropped sword, a dwarf will allow you to bend down to pick up your sword, and then beat you...never let follish ideas blind you to the fact thyat the enemy attacked you, and honor only goes so far. Their goblins
Lord Ian Stark 09-07-05, 12:51 PM	Our "good" Barbarian announces she is going to take a shot at one of the goblins. The DM reminds her that she is good and that attacking the fleeing goblins would be an evil act. So what do you think? :rolleyes: Not only under normal situations is it not evil to fire on fleeing enemies, but these Goblins have already established the fact that if you let them live they will continue to ambush your camp. War and combat is just that. If you or an enemy attacks somone or some group, prepare to pay the consequences.
Oorlof 09-07-05, 12:52 PM	I'd rule it as neutral at most, but would probably not make an alignment issue out of it. For all the barbarian knows, the fleeing goblins are going to get even more reinforcements. Therefore, they're not harmless creatures trying to escape, they're doing their level best to get the barbarian and the party killed. That means they're a target. The barbarian is trying to save lives - his own, the lives of his buddies and the lives of the reinforcements - by killing the goblins. Angst away for having killed, but don't see this as a slide into e-ville.
KJW 09-07-05, 01:26 PM	Well I think that attacking fleeing opponents can be considered an evil act in some situations, and also poor tactics. Still the fault here lies with the DM, by having the goblins return to seek vengeance after their previous attack he forces the players to have to kill the fleeing goblins for fear of them returning again. So this is the DM railroading the players into conduct he wishes to penalize them for. If he doesn't want PCs slaughtering every last enemy, then he should avoid these sort of vengeance scenarios which in my opinion accomplish little but aggravate the players.
Draggah 09-07-05, 01:53 PM	KJW- Not that I'm disagreeing with your other points, but how is it bad tactics to kill a fleeing enemy? To the original poster- that's not evil at all in my book. A little cold maybe, but not evil (they asked for it after all).
LCD2YOU 09-07-05, 02:06 PM	seems the DM favors good=stoopid. When in battle, unless an enemy throws down their weapon and begs for mercy, they are fair game. So they are running? They must be off to get more reinforcements as they already told you were going to pay. Ask your DM to really think about what he's shoveling.
Toran_A_Sunder 09-07-05, 02:06 PM	I guess it would depend on what the barbarian hopes to achieve? Were he seeking exalted status, I would rule that attacking a fleeing enemy would compromise his ability to reach exalted status. Let us remember that forgiveness is divine. If not, however, then no, it shouldn't be an alignment issue for killing enemies you know have already attacked you twice and will probably attack again. And shame on the DM for forcing the players into this situation. It should be a choice to compromise alignment, not something forced on by the DM.
LCD2YOU 09-07-05, 02:11 PM	I guess it would depend on what the barbarian hopes to achieve? Were he seeking exalted status, I would rule that attacking a fleeing enemy would compromise his ability to reach exalted status. Let us remember that forgiveness is divine.Completely disagree. The goblins weren't asking for forgiveneness. They seem to be more interested in regrouping and attacking again. The PCs would have no idea what were the intentions of the goblins were. Though they had no idea what the goblins were about to do, they still know what the goblins had done and were capable of by bringing reinforcements. If the DM wanted to give an "object lesson" in chasing down enemies in unfamiliar terrian, he should have an ambush waiting for them.If not, however, then no, it shouldn't be an alignment issue for killing enemies you know have already attacked you twice and will probably attack again. And shame on the DM for forcing the players into this situation. It should be a choice to compromise alignment, not something forced on by the DM.I agree.
pangalactic 09-07-05, 02:46 PM	I guess it would depend on what the barbarian hopes to achieve? Were he seeking exalted status, I would rule that attacking a fleeing enemy would compromise his ability to reach exalted status. Let us remember that forgiveness is divine. In that case, the barbarian should ideally be dealing subdual damage in combat so as not to slay those who would make theirselves his enemies. It's not evil, though, as I believe has now been established. It's being intelligent; so maybe it is a little bit OOC for the barbarian ;)
Seeker95 09-07-05, 02:55 PM	It is not honourable. But it is also not evil. And shooting them as they flee is smart. Otherwise, they will come back when you are not ready.
KJW 09-07-05, 03:01 PM	Draggah, three tactical reasons why slaughtering fleeing enemies is a bad idea. First, by Sun Tzu you always leave your enemy a way out so that they will retreat. The principle here is that if your enemy can't retreat they will continue to fight, and I would rule get a +2 to their attack rolls. Cornered enemies fight fiercer as they know they are going down. Always give your enemy a way out and very likely they will use it. Second, the DM being discussed is not thinking too clearly. You see people, even goblins don't want to die. Those that flee should report back that they were slaughtered by a party of super-powerful humans (or whatever), there account will be embelished of course to explain their defeat. In reality unless there is a compelling reason otherwise their chieftain will probably let the PCs go and put the community on alert, maybe send a rival to deal with the problem, but he will report he couldn't find them. Third, DMs usually don't like PCs chasing down every enemy that flees for it wastes time and comes across as bloodthirsty. Of course if a DM pulls stunts like this one with the vengeance party, then the PCs will feel compelled to slaughter all fleeing enemies. One last thought, there are times when the PCs will need to slaughter everyone and that is if stealth is a necessity, then the situation is different. But with a random encounter let the cowards flee, they may even have learned a lesson.
Chade Fallstar 09-07-05, 05:13 PM	First, by Sun Tzu you always leave your enemy a way out so that they will retreat. The principle here is that if your enemy can't retreat they will continue to fight, and I would rule get a +2 to their attack rolls. Cornered enemies fight fiercer as they know they are going down. Always give your enemy a way out and very likely they will use it. However, nowhere in The Art of War does it talk about attacking a retreating enemy. It is far easier to deal with such problems in advance than later, as was previously mentioned. While your paraphrase is correct, Sun Tzu never says not to attack those who flee, as was implied in your statement. A better tactical strategy is to allow a way of escape, and then harass the enemy the entire time they are escaping. (more on this thought in second statement) Second, the DM being discussed is not thinking too clearly. You see people, even goblins don't want to die. Those that flee should report back that they were slaughtered by a party of super-powerful humans (or whatever), there account will be embelished of course to explain their defeat. In reality unless there is a compelling reason otherwise their chieftain will probably let the PCs go and put the community on alert, maybe send a rival to deal with the problem, but he will report he couldn't find them. You are assuming that A) the PCs are fighting only a smaller part of a whole tribe, B) the goblins have a nearby hideout, and C) the PCs intent is to kill every last opposed villian. While A and B are probable assumptions, C is not. It would be better tactically for the PCs to attack/kill fleeing enemies so that only one escapes (possibly wounded), to relay the message that even small attacks will be dealt with as harshly as possible. When the tribe comes to this understanding you should have only two outcomes: all out attack or all out defense. What comes of that is up to the DM and can be a great time for RPing. Third, DMs usually don't like PCs chasing down every enemy that flees for it wastes time and comes across as bloodthirsty. Of course if a DM pulls stunts like this one with the vengeance party, then the PCs will feel compelled to slaughter all fleeing enemies. I am not certain what you are trying to say here. I agree with the first sentance, but the second hardly makes sense. If you are trying to suggest the party will always chase down fleeing goblins, then you may be right, but it is not reasonable to assume they will behave the same given a different circumstance, say a party member wounded or persons needing protection.
KJW 09-07-05, 06:51 PM	Reread your Sun Tzu. Its the intent of war to defeat an enemy, in no way does this mean slaughtering the entire enemy force. In fact that is nearly always impractical and a poor idea, except in a D&D context. That is one of my problems with D&D, many times PCs feel that either for XP or praticality they must slaughter all hostile forces. Also unlike the world in which Sun Tzu wrote and we live, there are different races, many of which are 'evil', which blurs the issue. The question is whether this is a good act or not, I merely suppose that it is certainly not a good act to attack most fleeing enemies. I do agree that there are indeed valid times for a party to attack fleeing enemies, such as when dealing with undead, demons, or similar universal evil. That said, I would also not force an alignment change on a PC for a single 'evil' acts (unless egregious), I believe that people make mistakes and only the gods perfectly match their alignments. My final point, which I was unclear on, is that DMs set the world and encourage through their encounters and actions the conduct of their players. DMs can reward mercy, maybe an enemy allowed to flee one day repays the favor, or perhaps the PCs get a reputation for honor that gets them selected for a critical mission of some sort.
Thailfi 09-07-05, 09:25 PM	??????? I am struggling to find even the slightest reason how anyone could consider this an evil act. A hostile force has already shown that if allowed to escape, they will regroup, get help, and return in greater numbers. It would be irresponsible and stupid to allow them to escape to get help again, when the party risks next to nothing to eliminate the final two goblins. I wouldn't run after two goblins on their home turf due to potential booby traps, but it is just plain silly not to do so here.
pres_man 09-08-05, 01:11 AM	My guess is that the DM views unnecessary killing as evil. For example, defeating an orc tribe and telling them to leave the area or defeating an orc tribe and putting them all to the sword. Many would argue that allowing the orcs to leave is 1) just pushing the problem somewhere else and/or 2) foolishly shortsighted as the orcs will just regroup and come back in a few years. My guess is the DM views the killing of intelligent humanoids when it is not obviously necessary (immediate danger, not preemptive strikes), as something only psychopaths would accept as desirable. Most folk would rather not have to kill an intelligent humanoid if they could avoid it. In this case due to the fact that the party got attacked by the same goblin clan(?), the killing of the goblins that were fleeing wouldn't necessarily be evil. I don't think it would be good, but not evil. More of an unfortunate necessity.
epifreak 09-08-05, 01:33 AM	Wait a minute here, Some of the responses seem to imply that the party (or at least the barbarian) was in the act of chasing the goblins down, which would be a bad strategy; however, if the party follows the first rule of Baldur's Gate and ensures that everyone has a ranged weapon, then the fleeing goblins can be dropped with no risk of the party stumbling upon more nasties. I say this because I am moderately sure that the opinion that it is not an evil act to attack the fleeing goblins, especially given the circumstances, is universally shared here. Most of the discussion seems to be over whether it is practical and/or strategically viable to strike at them.
Yak of Darkness 09-08-05, 02:59 AM	While I agree with pretty much everyone else in this thread, I also have to ask what the hell is up with this: The DM reminds her that she is good and that attacking the fleeing goblins would be an evil act.Insinuations of "why are you playing your character, and not your alignment?"* being tossed at a PC mid-game is just as bad, if not worse, DMing than railroading that "moral quandary" to begin with. *The original bit in the quotes was "why are you playing your character, and not one extreme example of the multitude of ideals that can come out of one component of your alignment?" but that's just not as snappy.
Saerden 09-08-05, 05:51 AM	hmm, maybe allowing EVIL races to live is an evil act? if your one of those good-doers, you can try to convince the orks / goblins that they should all convert to tree-hugging and eating nonsentinent plants. But its DnD, where 90% of the rules deal with slaughtering stuff. Evil just means "its perfectly fine to slaughter them without moral dilemas of any sort". Letting them get away just means that they will do their evil stuff somewhere else. Of course you may play a "shades of grey" campaign where goblins are no worse then humans or elves, but that is a different story.
KJW 09-08-05, 08:14 AM	On the tactical side, this is one major problem with D&D, the mechanics in many situations eliminate the risk of death to PCs. Tactically, I would have to admit that there is probably little risk to the PCs in killing the fleeing goblins. If a more realistic mechanic were in place, like d20 Modern or d20 Star Wars, then the PCs would be less likely to pursue the goblins, because they would still be a genuine threat. D&D is often a little too video game-like in its mechanics and this is one good example of that. As for the morality, let me be clearer. In this situation, with the PCs having been attacked twice by the same group of goblins, I agree there are strong grounds for them to eliminate the fleeing goblins. My point is that attacking fleeing enemies can sometimes be seen, and arguably is evil. First, I believe, and hope, that everyone agrees that killing a goblin who drops his weapons and surrenders would clearly be an evil act. Second, I believe that everyone agrees that killing a goblin who is making a fighting withdrawal is clearly NOT an evil act. Its the gray areas in-between that are where there is any disagreement. Let us suppose a fleeing goblin drops his weapons and holds his arms above his head and runs aways, would it be evil to kill him? I believe yes, that would likely be an evil act. The goblin is unnarmed and no threat. Some seem to imply that because goblins are evil, allowing him to live would be an evil act. By this logic, a paladin should walk through a town and kill everyone he detects as evil. I assume all would agree this would be itself an evil act. Merely being evil is not a crime, not even in D&D. Additionally, defending your territory is not an evil act. Banditry and the like is a different story, but if evil goblins were defending their territory, they are not actually committing an evil act. In any encounter, the PCs do not know all the facts, so with that in mind, unnecessary violence would be itself be an evil act.
Tharivol Nailo 09-08-05, 08:37 AM	For some reason the Huns in Mulan come to mind: Hun Leader: How many people does it take to deliver a message? Archer: shoots arrow at back, kills one of the two fleeing soldiers. This isn't an evil act, other wise by that notion, a palidin who kills the lord of demons/devils even after begging for mercy would become evil!
KJW 09-08-05, 09:17 AM	I am confused. I believe that the action from Mulan is clearly evil, while the situation with the paladin is slightly more complicated. They aren't the same. In Mulan the two soldiers were prisoners, unarmed, and were fleeing (after being released) with their backs to the enemy. Unquestionably, evil. As for the paladin it would not be evil to give mercy, but would it be evil to kill the demon lord? Paladins are empowered to carry our justice for a higher power and would be entitled to execute the demon lord if the demon lord had committed crimes. But, what if the demon lord offered to withdraw all of its demons from the Prime for a period of 100 years in exchange for its life (assuming this could be enforced, though in my campaigns, oaths are binding on everyone). Then maybe it would be evil to kill the demon lord, when the greater good may be to spare the life of the demon lord, who if killed would merely be instantly replaced by a successor.
Draggah 09-09-05, 10:15 AM	Yeah, that action in Mulan was definitely evil. KJW- I agree that during an actual battle it would be foolish and wasteful not to allow your enemy to retreat or surrender. However, the situation described sounds more like a small engagement with what amounts to a scouting party. It had already been shown that, given the oppurtunity, the goblins were enclined to get reinforcements and return for another attack. Who's to say that they wouldn't return with even more goblins the next time? It would be foolish in the extreme to allow a member of a scouting party to escape and alert a larger force. In my mind, if a bunch of guys from my town were going to get revenge for something against some drifters, nothing would send a more powerful message than if NONE of those guys EVER CAME BACK. P.S. I still don't think this was an evil act.
KJW 09-09-05, 11:29 AM	I agree with you Draggah. I have since my first post on this thread agreed that in the situation posted by the OP, the party is legitimate in striking down the fleeing goblins after their second attack. It would appear that the goblins are using harrassing tactics against the PCs and would be back again. Or would keep coming back for vengeance. I just think that some posters that argue it is always good to kill fleeing enemies are way off base, both tactically and by D&D morality.
Surprise 09-09-05, 12:11 PM	curan69, it looks like everyone on the board agrees that the situation you described does not commit an evil act. There is some disagreement as to whether it is neutral or good (as well as tactically sound, which is irrelevant) but I agree that there is no issue with disparity in alignment. And thank you, Yak of Darkness :thumbsup: , for pointing out the fact the Dm is telling PC's to play their alignment and not their character. I couldn't have put it better myself. -Surprise
Sir Knight 09-09-05, 02:53 PM	I do not believe it is an Evil act at all. If I were playing a Knight, Paladin, or someone with an honor-code I would rule it was dishonorable to attack a fleeing enemy from the back and probably let him go. If I were playing anything else with a ranged attack I'd take a pot-shot or two. If I were playing a goblin-hating dwarf I'd charge after them. :)
SALDAR 09-11-05, 05:28 AM	It is Good's duty to seek out and destroy Evil in all its forms. Would this good character have destroyed an evil creature? Yes. That is what good beings do. Would this good character cause undue pain, misery, and suffering or gain pleasure in doing so? No. This is the perview of evil beings. Was the goblin incapable of defending itself? No. It was moving and was not helpless. Allowing an evil creature to escape from a battle it initiated without action would have been a failure for Good. Such a creature would undoubtedly cause pain, misery, and suffering to those it meets. Mercy is an aspect of Good used upon those that are deserving of it. A goblin attacking under the cover of night in hopes of slaying you and your comrades deserves no mercy because of its own evil actions. Don't read too much into the alignments of the game. Good destroys Evil. That is the way the game was created and is played. Whether the goblin was charging or running away doesn't matter. As long as the party and goblins were still in combat (i.e. following initiative order) it was still considered by the rules to be combat and nothing more.
melp 09-13-05, 12:51 PM	Simantics in D&D is such a difficult thing to deal with when not everyone has read everything or understood what they read. It's even harder if we're all not using the same books or if we've made optional rules. To open fire on a fleeing opponent could be lawful or chaotic, depending upon the code to which the character adheres and what reasoning he has to attack. However, this is not the issue at hand. Attacking a fleeing opponent who's ambushed you twice, in the same spot/ same night, mind you would be to redeem some of you intelligence, it is A smart thing to do. One of many smart decisions... As to whether it's good or evil, this depends on what rules we're looking at. Did they shout "We're sorry!" or "You'll pay for this!" as they ran? Which diety does the barbarian worship? Most good aligned dieties I can think of would not allow those goblins to be slaughtered as they ran, even though the the rightly deserve it. To not kill them isn't necessarily stupid, just different tactly. the party can leave the region, eliminating some threat from them. I'd also like to note that beating 2 ambushes in the same night (presumably from sleep) is something to be said toward intimidate, if they ever get the courage to actually attack again. This is an evil act to do, however it's not so evil as to change the alignment. Your DM should have allowed the act, so long as the Barbarian's player new to show some penance later. Remember, if you don't agree on rules, the DM wins and can cover is ears and shout "La la la!" Discussion takes place later, like this, so good job! So, yeah. Evil act, but not alignment changing. Everyone slips up, especially the young (lvl 1 barbarian...) and that was the perfect time for the character to learn something of forgiveness, even in the extreme.
melp 09-13-05, 12:52 PM	Mercy is an aspect of Good used upon those that are deserving of it. This is something that Good characters are supposed to believe apply to everyone, if they ask for it.
Seeker95 09-13-05, 01:00 PM	This is something that Good characters are supposed to believe apply to everyone, if they ask for it.Not true. Mercy is a decidedly Neutral Good feature. Lawful Good will not sacrifice justice to grant mercy, Chaotic Good will not view each mercy request on a case-by-case basis.
Saerden 09-13-05, 01:36 PM	First, I believe, and hope, that everyone agrees that killing a goblin who drops his weapons and surrenders would clearly be an evil act. Nope neutral. If Goblins are a threat to you or your loved ones (could be your nation), getting rid of them is a smart thing to do. Dragging around Goblins who may have surrendered because they got hit by "Im an outcast and im gonna be so cool dualwielding scimitars and holding angst-ridden monologues about my past"-syndrome or because they are cowards who will turn against you at every possible opportunity involves personal sacrifice. - unless you can read thoughts (and dont loose ressources aka spellslots for doing so). Killing them painfully is evil. Just killing them is not.
melp 09-13-05, 01:44 PM	Not true. Mercy is a decidedly Neutral Good feature. Lawful Good will not sacrifice justice to grant mercy, Chaotic Good will not view each mercy request on a case-by-case basis. Mercy is still a good trait. A lawful good character will stay within the boundries of the law, but also grant mercy where he can. Take a modern judge as an example. Some are kind enough to give you the mininum sentence if he thinks you can reform, he doesn't just throw the book at you. As for chaotic good, it's free will baby, and if he's so inclined to not retaliate with undo force (slaughtering opponents as they flee) then he shouldn't. If you're a dual alignment, LG, for example, then you're both lawful and good, you'll be as good as law allows and as good as the codes allow. You can lean one way or the other, but you must be both if you are both. Another thing to note is whether the barbarian is a caretaker, righter of wrongs, or slayer of evil. Which does the barbarinan usually fall under? Depending on this tribe or clan, he could be any.
Baptor 09-13-05, 01:49 PM	This DM is probably a lover of neutral and evil characters. If he plays in a game, watch what he plays. Ill bet its a neutral or evil character. People that like evil and neutral alot are typically people that sterotype good characters into "passionate, but foolish idealists" which isnt true. Im not saying anything new here, but here is my multi-point reasoning behind why attacking a fleeing goblin isnt an evil act. The reasons become more solidified as they increase in number. 1. How does your character know they are actually "fleeing"? What if its a tactical retreat, and the goblins plan to double-back and flank your position? 2. The goblins have flashed blades and drawn blood. Its obvious they wont listen to reason, and are attacking you and threating your livelyhood. 3. Also, as many have pointed out, its been made clear by the previous attack that if the goblins flee, they will return to kill again, and probably in greater numbers. Its a good character's responsibility to dispatch of them to safeguard himself and his friends. The DM has committed what in legal terms is called "entrapment" by which he forces your character to commit a "so-called" crime in order to meet his own sinister agenda. Also, to whomever said killing a goblin that attacks you then surrenders is evil, is wrong. That is a neutral act. Saerden said it best and I agree. Id say an evil act, would be to find a goblin camp full of women and children, then launch a suprise attack to kill every single one just cause.
Gedrin 09-13-05, 01:59 PM	So...let me get this straight. Encounter One: Bandit Goblins attempt to murder the party by night. The PC's allow some to escape. Encounter Two: The would be murderers return and attempt vengeful murder. This time, the PC's don't let any of them run for help. Is it okay to kill the fleeing goblins? 1. Are they a threat? Yes. They have proven that they will go, get help, and come back to kill you if possible. 2. Have they done anything deserving death? Yes. They have, not once, but twice, tried to murder the party. 3. Is lethal force needed? Maybe. The party might be able to detain them without lethal force, but that depends on specifics not currently available. The situation is such that risking a capture may not be wise. Given that the party has been subject to multiple potentially lethal attacks by these goblins, lethal force is an option. Ideally, a demand for surrender with a threat of death would be issued,"Stop or I'll shoot," but there is little reason to believe there would be an acceptable response. It is no more evil to shoot these fleeing goblins than it is for a police officer to shoot a multiple murderer as he attemps to escape. Obviously, we prefer capture, but exposing the party, or other innocents, to the continued danger of these murderous goblins is the primary concern.
melp 09-13-05, 02:12 PM	Hmm, maybe my point needs clarifying... All I'm trying to say is chasing them down and SLAUGHTERING a fleeing opponent is evil. To fire at them to drive them out, after the 2nd attack, is not evil, so long as the reasons are to drive them out and protect your party. If it's simply to kill because you were attacked, that'll fall under any other alignment. Chase them, make sure the don't come back, but it is a good act to accept a surrender. Like I said, we're not told if the goblins did or not. Baptor's best reason is his first, however, a person usually sticks to their morals in such a situation. This is when you see a person's true color. They may have the reverence to let them leave, or they may have the blood lust to kill kill kill. Remember, the good aligned people do have the option to LEAVE after this attack, knowing that another would be coming. Also, they know now not to stay in the same place after an ambush. Now, her's the problem, it's both good to protect your party, and to allow them to flee. Baptor is right about the situation the DM put the Barbarian in. If any other character was to chose between what I said, say, a NE character had to chose between those two good acts, either of his choices would be neutral, not good, as he's forced to choose between two good acts. Here he's made to choose between the extreme of good, however stupid and the lesser of good, very smart. If he's not exhalted, he can then open fire if prevent a furture attack. Please, just note that attacking them to retaliate is and evil act. Fighting back and defending one's self is simply smart.
Dartanel 09-13-05, 02:13 PM	I'd put this act of the good side of neutral. Not suitable for an exalted character, but perfectly fine for 99/100 good characters.
pres_man 09-13-05, 05:28 PM	It is Good's duty to seek out and destroy Evil in all its forms. Aaahhh yes, the basis of the detect-smite paladin. Very well played. Would this good character have destroyed an evil creature? Yes. That is what good beings do. Would this good character cause undue pain, misery, and suffering or gain pleasure in doing so? No. This is the perview of evil beings. Was the goblin incapable of defending itself? No. It was moving and was not helpless. Is there a difference between an evil creature and a creature that is evil? Allowing an evil creature to escape from a battle it initiated without action would have been a failure for Good. Such a creature would undoubtedly cause pain, misery, and suffering to those it meets. Do only evil creatures attack others? Could a neutral creature attack others, say others that are encroaching on the neutral creature's territory? Is protecting terrority an evil act and punishable by death? Is following the orders of others an evil act? Mercy is an aspect of Good used upon those that are deserving of it. A goblin attacking under the cover of night in hopes of slaying you and your comrades deserves no mercy because of its own evil actions. Mercy is for the innocent and not the guilty? Interesting. Don't read too much into the alignments of the game. Good destroys Evil. Right, and that is why the detect-smite paladin is such a legitmate character concept.
Lord Ian Stark 09-13-05, 05:56 PM	This is something that Good characters are supposed to believe apply to everyone, if they ask for it. A Paladin is allowed to show no mercy when a creature is evil. This is in the RAW description of a Paladin. So yes a detect-smite Paladin may be poor RPing, but not outside his character concept. The longer you try to understand why an evil creature does his deeds the deception will only grow. If evil wasn't absolute in D&D, the Paladin class would be obsolete. He would become a second guessing wishy-washy fighter variant. Instead he is a Divine Champion of his God or cause that knows his mission and when and how to deal with those found wanting.
Bruunwald 09-13-05, 07:25 PM	:rolleyes: Not only under normal situations is it not evil to fire on fleeing enemies, but these Goblins have already established the fact that if you let them live they will continue to ambush your camp. War and combat is just that. If you or an enemy attacks somone or some group, prepare to pay the consequences. Absolutely. I'll go a slight step further and say that continuing to act during your enemy's retreat is normal and expected and has no alignment issue attached at all. Especially for a barbarian. Example: Our party had just rescued a small boy from a shadow barghest and his shadow goblin minions. The samurai had been earlier weakened by shadows, and the other spellcasters were nearly out of spells. The barghest had been webbed and greased, and my warmage 1/fighter 2 took a moment to fight the thing alone while the others fled back out of the woods. The thing was nearly dead when the grease spell ended, and it escaped the web. I was moving away when it escaped. Because I was adjacent to a square it ran through after its withdrawal, I was able to attack it. The DM said it was running away, but I reacted and hit it, killing it. For a second, he teased me, reminding me that it was trying to run away and hinting that I didn't have to kill it. But at the time, I wasn't really thinking of anything. I was pretty into my character, and just reacting. Dangerous creature moving. Me all alone. Trying to cover their escape. I reacted. The DM agreed that was neither evil nor good. Simply a reaction in a battle situation.
Bruunwald 09-13-05, 07:33 PM	A Paladin is allowed to show no mercy when a creature is evil. This is in the RAW description of a Paladin. So yes a detect-smite Paladin may be poor RPing, but not outside his character concept. The longer you try to understand why an evil creature does his deeds the deception will only grow. If evil wasn't absolute in D&D, the Paladin class would be obsolete. He would become a second guessing wishy-washy fighter variant. Instead he is a Divine Champion of his God or cause that knows his mission and when and how to deal with those found wanting. Then again, a paladin is allowed to apply mercy as he sees fit. This may be to an evil creature. That isn't to say that he won't still mete out justice or be on his guard. But he isn't under some contract to immediately kill a kneeling, mercy-begging creature based on its alignment. An individual might find doing so distasteful or wrong. I would. Would I drag him back to justice, chained and squealing, ignoring his pleas for leniency, and then toss him in a cell to rot? Sure. But I wouldn't stick a sword through somebody begging for mercy. It just doesn't seem honorable. And honor is important to a paladin, as well.
OctoberRaven 09-13-05, 07:41 PM	First off, about using Sun Tzu, war tactics do not apply to this. This is an ambush, and they are definately not fighting as warriors. Second, not only is attacking the goblins NOT an evil act, it's plenty choatic, which for barbarians is meat and potatos alignment-wise. Third, in any case it's self defense. The goblin fighters attacked first, and the PCs are justified in preventing another sneak attack in this way.
Lord Ian Stark 09-13-05, 08:00 PM	Then again, a paladin is allowed to apply mercy as he sees fit. This may be to an evil creature. That isn't to say that he won't still mete out justice or be on his guard. But he isn't under some contract to immediately kill a kneeling, mercy-begging creature based on its alignment. An individual might find doing so distasteful or wrong. I would. Would I drag him back to justice, chained and squealing, ignoring his pleas for leniency, and then toss him in a cell to rot? Sure. But I wouldn't stick a sword through somebody begging for mercy. It just doesn't seem honorable. And honor is important to a paladin, as well. What you said is true, however I was pointing out that if a Paladin did just run an evil creature through with his sword, he would not be in violation of his character's concept. Everyone likes to throw in that the evil creature is pregnant or the evil creature is the King of the land. It makes no difference what other people think as they don't make the decision whether a Paladin loses his abilities or not. It's the vioation to his code or his God/cause that will penalize his abilities. IMO slaughtering an evil creature has nothing to do with honor. That creature being evil waved his rights in the eyes of such a holy champion. Remember there is no "diet coke" of Evil in D&D. You are or you aren't. LE NE and CE are evil. Period. If I as a Paladin walk up to the Evil King and slaughter him, I will be punished by man and NOT by my God or cause. Men and woman that take such a vow to become a Paladin look beyound the "media" approach of analysis on every situation. If he/she is evil they are found wanting and are susceptable to the ultimate means of justice. Whether that is by death or imprisonment depends on the Paladin