| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| O_ConfusedOne02-15-08, 12:27 AM | Hey All-- I've been playing LG for under a year and a few weeks ago I ran across a situation that makes me realize that I may not understand a) the alignments in general, b) the Living Greyhawk system, or c) something else. It has to do with what a Living Greyhawk party does with a beaten opponent who is helpless (either with less than 0 hp but more than -10 or incapacited via whatever, uh, I dunno Hold Person). Now, I'm trying to get some rules of thumbs to go on here. I'm going to write a scenario and, by making it as wide a possible, try to figure out how and why people feel their answer is best...especially since I really can't find this answer in any rulebook (but then again, I don't own many). Let me describe the situation: 1) My APL4 party of 6 brave, brave adventurers is happily walking in LOCATIONZ where we are ambused by two XXXX!!! 2) Bravely we fought and defeated our attackers!! Huzzah!! One bad guy was killed outright...the other was down to -3 hp and bleeding out. 3) I said to the party and DM, "I'll go finish off the remaining XXXX." I walked to the XXXX at -3 hp and prepared to end the thing. 4) A few players took exception to that (but the DM did not)*. They argued that it would be an evil act. "We have to take it in for justice." I was fine with taking it in for justice, I just don't understand the "HAVE TO" part of the equation. 5) And after discussing this issue with a few people at the table, I realize that I don't get it. Now, I haven't told you my character's alignment, nor where it happened, nor what the creature was. Here are the things I don't get.... a) Is there any difference between letting a XXXX bleed out rather than granting it the sweet, sweet mercy of my axe? b) Exactly what are the rules for knowing what we have to "bring back to town for justice?" Is it alignment? Creature subtype? Humanoidity? Local laws? c) Does location matter in determining what we have to "bring back to justice"? In a dungeon? 1 mile out of town? 150 miles from the nearest town? d) Does my alignment matter? I'm non-evil (and non-chaotic). I've read and re-read the PH (pgs 103-104) about alignments and mine in particular and I can't see anything that says I have to "bring things in for justice." e) Is finishing off the badguy, if it's wrong, an EVIL act or a CHAOTIC act or BOTH? It would be nice if I knew where to find the core rules or Living Greyhawk guidelines or whatever that would help me play these things in the future. Opinions are welcome, but I'd love some solid rules for reading and thought. Thanks. Confused One * = I recognize that the DM has a responsibility (it's in the LGCS) to let me know if I was about to commit an evil act. But that won't help me in the future. ** = Yes, I live in the Pale and they have some funky laws and stuff...but I don't think that is a part of this discussion. |
| Jay_Ibero_91102-15-08, 12:38 AM | Well certain things there's no thought in finishing off...anything with the evil subtype like evil outsiders (unless you've specifically been sent to capture X)...constructs and undead are destroyed at 0 so that's not a problem...same goes for any creature of animal intelligence or less (INT 2 or lower). Most humanoids could potentially be brought in to justice...though it would really be fine just stabilizing them and doing enough non-lethal damage to put them in a week long coma...It can be evil to kill a helpless creature depending on what it is, but just defeating it, taking it's stuff, and leaving it knocked out or bound is fine. And if you are ever really worried, just ask your DM. If he doesn't think killing helpless enemy X is an evil act, that's all that really matters. Intelligent humanoids are the only things that should be an issue, as pretty much any monstery type creature would just be put to death in town anyway... |
| CQMers02-15-08, 12:43 AM | :D :confused: :cool: ;) |
| O_ConfusedOne02-15-08, 01:14 AM | Jay: I love that your cheese stands alone. I appreciate your thoughts...but it leads me to more questions. I wish this was explained someplace. I'm not trying to be argumentative either...I just want a better rule than 'ask the DM'. I see the point about evil outsiders...no one is going to complain. And constructs and undead. Makes sense. I personally would have more of a problem killing animals Int=2 than some chaotic neutral outsiders. I know that defeating it, taking it's stuff, and leaving it knocked out and bound works from a technical "let's get the job done" standpoint, but it doesn't work from a character standpoint. Why would my character want to leave this helpless, now bound opponent here in LOCATIONZ? How is that different than killing them? If my character didn't feel that was a reasonable option (say the creature could get loose, regenerate/heal, and start threatening innocents), what then? Intelligent Humaniods? They need to be 'brought to justice'? Why them? Why only them? Epiphany: There is no magical answer is there? It's all on the DM to decide? I mean, what makes it 'right' to bring intelligent humanoids 'in for justice' but not a stone giant (nuetral, intelligent)? Crap. I'm arguing myself in circles. You should hear some of the things I'm thinking but don't have the clarity to type. O_CO |
| Madfox1102-15-08, 04:45 AM | There is no clear answer since it all depends on the circumstances, the opponents, the DM and the character involved. It certainly is not an automatically evil act, and although lawful characters are much more likely to deliver the opponenent to the law, even that is not automatic. Although I fondly remember a discussion between my barbarian and a paladin about the hypocracy of carrying around a prisoner we caught red handed in slave trade, human sacrifice and other vile crimes that would guaranteed be punished by execution. Besides, we were not yet finished with our mission, and the captured enemy was a dangerous wizard who we knew could dimension door (and later we as players learned he had a still silent dimension door prepared - lucky us ;)). |
| Puggle Halfwine02-15-08, 07:16 AM | My opinion: Killing is not itself an evil act. Animals do it *all the time*, and they're neutral. Nobody is going to call a leopard evil because it almost exclusively kills living creatures to eat. It's also not a good act. It's just neutral. Not good, not bad. The reason behind the killing is another matter. The reason why your character decided to kill the monsterous humanoid may be evil (pleasure, fun, spite, vengence, etc) or neutral (food, competition for shelter/mates, self-defence, etc) or good (defence of innocents, legitimate justice, etc). And essentially, only you can decide this- nobody else. So I would answer that it's not up to the GM, but up to you. Of course... you kind of have to do a bit of soul-searching here and ask; "Am I doing this because I think it's legitimately a neutral act and my character is neutral, or am I doing this because I think it's the best metagame solution, easiest solution, etc. Bear in mind that almost all people, including evil aligned people, *believe* they are doing the right thing. So does your character believe he's doing the right thing or not? Cheers, Dave. |
| MwaO02-15-08, 09:13 AM | I think this is a variant of the Good = Stupid philosophy. There should be nothing wrong with administering a coup de grace to an Evil opponent(and the FAQ says such using a Paladin as an example) or putting a bleeding and unconscious opponent out of their misery(what, you're going to let them dehydrate to death or die of infection? Or possibly have some wild animal wander by and eat them? Without any equipment in the wilderness? That's the good act?) The problem is when you start making deals with your opponent or implying that you're not going to kill them. If you say, "Hey, we won't kill you if you tell us what you know." and then you kill them, then there ought to be a problem. |
| Timlagor02-15-08, 09:54 AM | It should be clear by now that there is no clear answer but here's my position: * You must learn to distinguish between the Evil Act(tm) which is entirely at the determination fo the GM and will go on your AR and what the characters consider acceptable. For the Evil Act(tm): * It's all about alignment * Killing an Evil creature is a Good Act * Killing a Good Creature is an Evil Act [&c for Chaotic and Lawful] * Killing a dangerous creature may be a good act (if you save innocents by doing so) * Local laws only affect your alignment if your Code makes them matter (eg if you have sworn to uphold them). LAwful Alignment does not inherently support local laws (though there certainly will be a correlation in most areas) * MOTIVE is irrelevant * You don't necessarily know a creature's alignment with accuracy * Lawful Good characters will generally favour a fair trial and giving enemies a chance to defend their actions. * Evil characters consider the consequences to themselves paramount * Chaotic characters may be more easily swayed by their companions * It doesn't much matter whether a creature is helpless. * Torture is evil but this may be mitigated by good consequences (unliklely to be performed by paladins) * There is a difference between 'killing' and 'allowing to die' but getting someone else to kill something counts as the former. |
| Timlagor02-15-08, 09:55 AM | The problem is when you start making deals with your opponent or implying that you're not going to kill them. If you say, "Hey, we won't kill you if you tell us what you know." and then you kill them, then there ought to be a problem. Definitely Chaotic but I can't see it as Evil. |
| JamesMaissen02-15-08, 10:14 AM | I mean, what makes it 'right' to bring intelligent humanoids 'in for justice' but not a stone giant (nuetral, intelligent)? It really depends on the society that your character finds themselves within rather than something more absolute. Likewise how the creature in question is viewed by that society. If we are talking about something that is not viewed as being part of a society then it has designations between animal and vermin. You might show kindness to an animal if you could prevent it from doing further harm, you could even look to sell it to a zoo, but you are unlikely to do that with a vermin that's simply a pestilence upon the land. If it's something that's part of a society but outside of your own then its how the two interact. If they are hostile then it's akin to war, while friendly then it's closer to being within your own. If it's something that's part of your own society then it's 'someone' rather than 'something' and then questions as to how lawful your society is come into play (and could come into play even in the prior category). Are your circumstances such that you could be expected to bring them in as prisoners? Or are you in a situation where 'frontier' justice has to apply? Think late 1800s then consider New York City vs the Badlands out West. Very different expectations on what you should do when confronting someone trying to rob you. -James |
| MwaO02-15-08, 11:19 AM | Definitely Chaotic but I can't see it as Evil. If you're lying to give someone hope of survival when they have none for your gain, then that's a clear evil act in my book. If you let them draw their own conclusions and they jump to the wrong one, that's chaotic. Btw, in the alignment section for the OP, Alhandra is described as a paladin who fights evil without mercy... |
| copperwyrmling02-15-08, 01:24 PM | I see the point about evil outsiders...no one is going to complain. And constructs and undead. Makes sense. I personally would have more of a problem killing animals Int=2 than some chaotic neutral outsiders. Killing animals is also known as "hunting", and in the Greyhawk campaign setting, there's no way it can be considered evil. Killing mindless creatures also can't really be considered evil, imo. Killing intelligent creatures is where the ambiguity arises. I know that defeating it, taking it's stuff, and leaving it knocked out and bound works from a technical "let's get the job done" standpoint, but it doesn't work from a character standpoint. Why would my character want to leave this helpless, now bound opponent here in LOCATIONZ? How is that different than killing them? If my character didn't feel that was a reasonable option (say the creature could get loose, regenerate/heal, and start threatening innocents), what then? Yeah - leaving them tied up and unconscious in a dangerous area is generally pretty much morally equivalent to killing them. I have seen the equivalent of, "We stick them in a rope trick, leaving them their daggers and enough food and water to make it back to civilization - they should wake up in an hour or two" when dealing with non-evil mooks who we didn't actually want to kill (but we also didn't want to drag them along with us). I've also been in a group of PCs that summarily executed a prisoner because we were deep in Iuzian territory and really couldn't afford to keep prisoners, and we knew she was guilty of mass murder and treason. It was a wartime situation: both the Lawful PCs and the GM were okay with it. Epiphany: There is no magical answer is there? It's all on the DM to decide? Yep. As a GM, the only time I remember warning a player was when the party had just rescued several prisoners from Iuzian captivity. The prisoners were all unarmed, unarmored and had offered no threat at all to the PCs. One of them detected as evil. The paladin went over to him and told him that if he didn't accept an Atonement spell he would be killed immediately. I told the paladin that (a) per the spell description, you can't force someone to Atone under duress, and (b) if he actually killed the guy, he would be committing an evil act and I would take away his paladinhood. (There are some nasty spells in the Book of Vile Darkness that temporarily or permanently change a target's alignment to Evil against their will: paladins, take note.) I mean, what makes it 'right' to bring intelligent humanoids 'in for justice' but not a stone giant (nuetral, intelligent)? Stone giants are really heavy and hard to carry when unconscious? ;) Killing is not itself an evil act. Animals do it *all the time*, and they're neutral. Nobody is going to call a leopard evil because it almost exclusively kills living creatures to eat. It's also not a good act. It's just neutral. Not good, not bad. I disagree with this - an animal is Neutral because it doesn't have the mental capacity to judge the morality of its acts. PCs are different, or should be ;) If a leopard killing a human for food isn't evil, then a leopard risking its life to protect its cubs isn't good - both are just instinctive actions. But a human killing an intelligent non-hostile creature in order to eat it is probably an Evil act, and a human risking her life to defend innocent children is a Good act. So yeah... expect much table variation ;) |
| Istaran02-15-08, 01:42 PM | Keep in mind that as Evil Acts (tm) have a potentially profound permanent effect on a character (up to and including removal from the campaign), most judges will err on the side of caution and avoid calling things Evil Acts (tm). The matter of what is acceptable/unacceptable to PCs is much more likely to come up, and there is no rules for that, because it is strictly a matter of your particular character. Two characters with the same alignment do not necessarily draw the same lines. That said, as both a matter of legality and morality, when you are in an urban setting you should almost always strive to take intelligent foes alive and turn them over to the authorities. In the wilderness it is a much less clearcut situation; you generally will not be faulted for 'frontier justice' if you are attacked or something, but bringing back prisoners is usually feasible. I would expect chaotic characters to go the 'frontier justice' route in that case, but I could easily see lawful characters going either way (though with some consistant logical pattern for why they choose one answer over the other). |
| Timlagor02-15-08, 02:15 PM | GMs should not be cautious about giving out Evil Act citations. The Triads (in conjunction with the Circle) are responsible for judging whether such acts amount to an Evil Alignment and will take all the care necessary. |
| Nerax02-15-08, 06:01 PM | Let me describe the situation: 4) A few players took exception to that (but the DM did not)*. They argued that it would be an evil act. "We have to take it in for justice." I was fine with taking it in for justice, I just don't understand the "HAVE TO" part of the equation. Were they tying to roleplay their characters perspectives or were these players perspectives? b) Exactly what are the rules for knowing what we have to "bring back to town for justice?" Is it alignment? Creature subtype? Humanoidity? Local laws? ** = Yes, I live in the Pale and they have some funky laws and stuff...but I don't think that is a part of this discussion. Having played in the Pale for two years, I don't remember any "local laws" about not killing anyone/thing and bringing them back to town and justice. If they didn't worship Pholtus....and even then we sometimes had permission...it was fair game. Fastest way to get from Chaotic Evil to Lawful Good is time in the New Dawn Camps......All Hail Pholtus! :D |
| Koushiro02-15-08, 10:34 PM | What kind of namby-pamby regions are you people from? Here in the shield lands we know the only good villain is a dead villain! Finishing off your foes isn't evil, it's smart. Evil things would be like, torturing them first and them killing them, things like that. |
| JohnduBois02-17-08, 08:05 AM | Here in the shield lands we know the only good villain is a dead villain! The folks from Furyondy all kinda look at each other for a second and reply, "So... was that before or after the Old One (spit) completely bent you over in the Greyhawk Wars?" |
| _metz_02-17-08, 08:30 PM | The folks from Furyondy all kinda look at each other for a second and reply, "So... was that before or after the Old One (spit) completely bent you over in the Greyhawk Wars?" Lets not devolve this into an Arguement over which region is better. I mean we have an Evil god in our Pantheon, and he saves Pcs all the time. Our latest major plotline involved whether to keep him in or not. (With a strong movement to exile those who heretically tried to get him kicked out!) |
| Puggle Halfwine02-17-08, 10:49 PM | I think we should kick him out. And replace him with Britt. All hail Britt! |
| jstorrie02-19-08, 07:36 PM | Whether it's an 'evil act' in campaign terms or not depends on your DM; your DM has to warn you ahead of time, though, so don't worry about wandering into an AR warning by accident. Whether it's 'evil' in alignment terms is often largely dependant on your DM. Generally speaking, if you accept someone's surrender, it's not a good act to betray their trust and then kill them, but if you've defeated them in combat you are not obliged to tend to their wounds. Whether it's appropriate for your PC is up to you, the player. My paladin of Al'Akbar shows compassion and mercy even to captured evil humanoids, but will not even negotiate with undead or evil outsiders; my chaotic-good bandit generally executes the very evil, but lets lawbreakers off the hook because he dosn't care; my alienist generally doesn't execute because he is squeamish around blood, but doesn't genuinely care about most strangers. If it's appropriate for your PC to be maliciously evil to prisoners, though, you might have chosen the wrong alignment... The prisoners issue can either be a fun quirk when playing at a table with a really merciful character, or an outright annoyance. My advice is that if you don't want to take prisoners, don't accept offers for surrender and kill before the merciful PCs can accept offers for surrender. As long as you don't accept an offer of surrender you are pretty safe with killing any hostiles–even ones you've knocked down to -8, restabilized and questioned. |
| jstorrie02-19-08, 07:45 PM | I should also point out, conversely, that showing exceptional mercy is often a good act. Good acts serve no meta-game purpose, but if they're in-character for your PC, by all means do it. |
| kinevon02-19-08, 07:55 PM | I should also point out, conversely, that showing exceptional mercy is often a good act. Good acts serve no meta-game purpose, but if they're in-character for your PC, by all means do it. Also remember, that in some encounters, you can learn useful things for later encounters if you are merciful. I know that in one module I played, that taking someone prisoner resulted both in making some later encounters easier without having to meta-game, and gave us some additional access on the AR, too. |
| BlackNova16902-19-08, 11:36 PM | I think this is a variant of the Good = Stupid philosophy. There should be nothing wrong with administering a coup de grace to an Evil opponent(and the FAQ says such using a Paladin as an example) Could I ask which FAQ you are referring to? Is it something in the PHB/DMG or is it in a particular LG resource? |
| O_ConfusedOne02-19-08, 11:48 PM | Hey All-- Thanks for all the wonderful responses and insights. I appreciate the time and thought you all have put into this. As I suspected, both me and my PC tormentor are both arguing shades of grey. We're both right and both wrong...and there is no answer. In fact, I pointed the person with whom I was having this discussion to this very post...he said that my questions were very neutral. And he feels that a majority of the posts support his position. It never fails to amaze me how two seemingly sane and rational individuals can read the same board and come up with two distinct readings....see, I feel a majority of the posts support MY position. Well, at least we aren't arguing on these here intratubez...we're keeping it nice and neat and flaming each other in private emails. Thanks again all. O_CO p.s. Had a great time at Theocracy by the Bay...played (and survived) the low level Rise of the Spider Queen and the 2-round Pale Special with no alignment issues. And wow....3 Dragon Ante is dang cool and a lot of fun. |
| Iswald02-20-08, 09:34 AM | The prisoners issue can either be a fun quirk when playing at a table with a really merciful character, or an outright annoyance. My advice is that if you don't want to take prisoners, don't accept offers for surrender and kill before the merciful PCs can accept offers for surrender. As long as you don't accept an offer of surrender you are pretty safe with killing any hostiles–even ones you've knocked down to -8, restabilized and questioned. If you take an opponent from -8 back up to 0 or 1 hp so that you can then question them, it would probably be considered evil in many cases to then kill them after questioning. |
| kenobi6502-20-08, 10:42 AM | Could I ask which FAQ you are referring to? Is it something in the PHB/DMG or is it in a particular LG resource? I imagine he's referring to the D&D FAQ, which is a PDF, downloadable from the WotC site, that's considered a LG rules document. Edit: Yup, that's exactly what he's referring to. The example is on p. 64 of the current FAQ file, under a discussion of whether a coup de grace is an evil act. |
| MwaO02-20-08, 12:34 PM | Could I ask which FAQ you are referring to? Is it something in the PHB/DMG or is it in a particular LG resource? Is a coup de grace attack an evil act? (i.e., can a paladin make such an attack without falling from grace?) The coup de grace is simply a kind of attack and is neither inherently good nor inherently evil. In some cases, it’s the best option against a foe (such as an unconscious but regenerating troll). If attacking a particular character would be considered an evil act—such as stabbing an innocent merchant in the middle of his shop—delivering a coup de grace on that character would be just as evil. Of course, if the paladin has already promised to face her foe in nonlethal combat, delivering a coup de grace would almost certainly violate her code of conduct. ------ Which is to say, by definition, a coup de grace is being made against a helpless opponent and that is not inherently an evil act. When it would be an evil act is when attacking that opponent would be an evil act regardless, helpless or not. That an evil opponent is unconscious and bleeding after they attacked you does not make them any less evil - and as the alignment section notes, Alhandra the Lawful Good Paladin fights evil opponents without mercy(PHB pg 105) |
| O_ConfusedOne02-21-08, 12:23 AM | MwaO, does the same apply to a neutral humanoidish opponent? Could a Paladin coup de grace a badguy bandit who just ambushed you, lost the combat, didn't quite die (-10 < hp < 0) but did not radiate as evil? O_CO |
| MwaO02-21-08, 08:09 AM | MwaO, does the same apply to a neutral humanoidish opponent? Could a Paladin coup de grace a badguy bandit who just ambushed you, lost the combat, didn't quite die (-10 < hp < 0) but did not radiate as evil? O_CO Yes. As per FAQ. A Coup de Grace is just an attack. |
| JamesMaissen02-21-08, 11:07 AM | MwaO, does the same apply to a neutral humanoidish opponent? Could a Paladin coup de grace a badguy bandit who just ambushed you, lost the combat, didn't quite die (-10 < hp < 0) but did not radiate as evil? O_CO Is the paladin not using a sap for such combats in the first place? Eek he's using lethal damage? He might kill something! -James |
| TWG_Prometheus02-21-08, 03:04 PM | Well, at least we aren't arguing on these here intratubez...we're keeping it nice and neat and flaming each other in private emails. I didn't have anything left to comment on really until I saw this. For your own good...stop arguing with them. Continuing to fight over a module that's over serves no purpose. If they're your DM at LG games going forward, use their ruling whether or not you agree with it. With stuff like this it's always better to take your lead from the DM, so it applies equally well with other people that DM for you. If you really really can't play by their ruling, then don't play games they're the DM for. If the continuing argument is over an evil act mark you got on an AR, it can't be fixed now anyway. Realize that one evil act mark isn't going to get anyone tossed out of the campaign, and only a Paladin could possibly need an Atonement after that. |
| Iswald02-21-08, 09:42 PM | Is the paladin not using a sap for such combats in the first place? Eek he's using lethal damage? He might kill something! Why would an honorable paladin use the weapon of choice for thugs? If the continuing argument is over an evil act mark you got on an AR, it can't be fixed now anyway. Realize that one evil act mark isn't going to get anyone tossed out of the campaign, and only a Paladin could possibly need an Atonement after that. Any divine spellcaster may need an atonement if they violate the ethos of their faith too much. |
| JamesMaissen02-22-08, 12:07 AM | Why would an honorable paladin use the weapon of choice for thugs? There was some sarcasm in my post. The point being was that if the paladin is striking to kill then a coup de grace isn't that much of a stretch. Along the way would be stabilizing bad guys during combat, etc. Assuming that he's out to kill the bad guys (which is very valid in a medieval society) then a coup de grace vs letting them bleed out seems merciful if nothing else. If the paladin is that concerned with their lives then he should be subduing them from the get go. -James |
| O_ConfusedOne02-23-08, 01:18 AM | I didn't have anything left to comment on really until I saw this. For your own good...stop arguing with them. Continuing to fight over a module that's over serves no purpose. If they're your DM at LG games going forward, use their ruling whether or not you agree with it. With stuff like this it's always better to take your lead from the DM, so it applies equally well with other people that DM for you. If you really really can't play by their ruling, then don't play games they're the DM for. Oh Prometheus-- Mebbe I exaggerated it a bit. Me and the one other person are actually having a nice pleasant conversation about the nature of lawful, good, and lawful good. We've actually had an amazingly nice conversation. If anything, it's been too polite. There were no lingering ill effects from the encounter, save that I had some questions that needed answering. Sometimes, a good argument is just good for thinking. We have covered a lot ground, too....this post was just to get some new thoughts into the discussion. And truly, I LOVE to argue/discuss alignment matters. It's just me. (Right now, I'm trying to decide if MY Paladin of Zilchus feels it's okay to sell herself sexually to a) get money or b) get a better trade/deal/take advantage. Whatcha think?) I'm actually restraining myself from arguing like heck with almost everyone who's posted here...but they freely gave me their thoughts and I appreciate it. Rock on, Prome...don't let the eagles bite. -O_CO |
| GrahamWills02-26-08, 04:29 PM | ------ Which is to say, by definition, a coup de grace is being made against a helpless opponent and that is not inherently an evil act. When it would be an evil act is when attacking that opponent would be an evil act regardless, helpless or not. That an evil opponent is unconscious and bleeding after they attacked you does not make them any less evil - and as the alignment section notes, Alhandra the Lawful Good Paladin fights evil opponents without mercy(PHB pg 105) This is not quite right, both in real life AND in D&D (as interpreted by BoED). Book of Exalted Deeds (p9) repurposes the Christian concept of a "Just war" in the section on Violence. Apart from the "must be against evil" clause (or more positively "must be for good"), it also requires a few other features: It must be done with good intentions. Killing an evil guy because you want his loot is NOT a good act. This is particularly important in D&D. Discrimination is also important -- good people must use means appropriate to the danger represented. Killing a dangerous orc barbarian is justifiable, killing a non-combatant orc is less justifiable. In real life, this is why we do not condone civilian casualities -- even if we think of them as evil. We also do not condone killing helpless combatants (the focus of this example) because it does not discriminate and uses excessive force. Failure to use the right amount of force can make the act evil. Killing a helpless foe is no more good than killing someone who loiters. It is a response that is wrong for the situation and excessive. Finally, BoED suggests that the means are important. No using evil spells to kill people, or spells that inflict unnecessary suffering. Given that this a case where real-life AND D&D materials agree, I think we can safely conclude that killing evil enemies that pose no threat to you is an evil act. That doesn't mean you cannot kill a helpless foe -- just that you must do it (i) if they are evil, (ii) if you do it from good intentions, (iii) if you do not belief there is any other way to neutralize them, and (iv) if you do it as humanely as possible. In most situations, a paladin should be able to stop them bleeding out, tie them up and disarm them, and they shoudl not pose a clear threat. I know some people will say that they might escape and start doing evil again -- yes, they might, but it is not the paladin's call unless he is empowered to render legal judgement including the right to summary execution. If he has that power, then, sure, if you are legally allowed to off the dude, do so if you think it is the legally correct answer. You are LAWFUL after all. Your neutral good Pelorite will shake his head sadly at you, and the Tritherionite Holy Liberator might try and dissuade you, but stand by your dual alignment! |
| bitznarf02-26-08, 04:55 PM | This is not quite right, both in real life AND in D&D (as interpreted by BoED). In my opinion, the BoED and BoVD have no place in such discussions. In most situations, a paladin should be able to stop them bleeding out, tie them up and disarm them, and they shoudl not pose a clear threat. I know some people will say that they might escape and start doing evil again -- yes, they might, but it is not the paladin's call unless he is empowered to render legal judgement including the right to summary execution. The FAQ clearly states otherwise on this particular point of yours - there is no requirement for a paladin to show such mercy. The rest of your post appears to simply be your opinion on the subject, not solid games rules from the PHB/DMG/MM/FAQ/LGCS. |
| _metz_02-26-08, 08:58 PM | This is why its supposed to be up to the GM. Alignment is a character choice, and a facet of roleplaying (yes, even if you are a paladin) As such its supposed to be interpretable by the player and the relevant GM. As LG has far too many GMs to be able to make consistent rulings, you just have to accept what happens on the table, if your GM is blatantly wrong and is having a go at your character, that is what RPGA guidelines and Senior GMS are for. Otherwise just take it in stride. Be glad there is someone there to run a game for you. Alignment is something you can never quantify or qualify. If it was able to be interpreted as such we would have one world religion and everyone would fall within these alignments and agree with thier strictures. That is not the ccase, they will always be an approximation open to GM interpretation, and it is best to learn to deal with it. If you want to play a murderous Paladin that kills without checking first, that is fine, but don't get angry if a GM says you are breaking your code. (this is just an example) Note this is even evident in regions of the World. Here in Perrenland we have an evil deity and recently were required to eliminate a large group of pregnant women in order to proceed in a module. Shocked? horrified? there are reasons for it, and it is to present a level of realism to a fantasy based setting. Other regions I hear, are quite the opposite, to the point where you can barely play even chaotic characters or do even 'neutral' things. Not that there is anything wrong with good versus evil, again, its a personal choice. few things bug me more than a person complaining they cannot be evil in LG. Its basically demanding to be able to play individualistic PCs that do nasty things to other characters and ignore basic 'heroic' ideals of dungeonos and dragons. THis means that it would be hard to play, as everytime you sat down at a table you have to worry about your teammates more than the 'bad guys'. But I digress. There is never any point massively argueing over it. Citing lines from the PHB, RAW is NEVER going to be an answer for alignment issues. EVER it is silly to think it will. Maybe in a wargame. but NOT in a roleplaying game. |
| MwaO02-26-08, 10:21 PM | This is why its supposed to be up to the GM. Alignment is a character choice, and a facet of roleplaying (yes, even if you are a paladin) As LG has far too many GMs to be able to make consistent rulings, you just have to accept what happens on the table, if your GM is blatantly wrong and is having a go at your character, that is what RPGA guidelines and Senior GMS are for. And the FAQ. This is not a RAW situation, this is the FAQ made a ruling which in LG we have to follow. I'm pointing out that the PHB has a direct line about alignment which backs up the FAQ - aka Lawful Good Paladin showing evil doers no mercy and that being considered the epitome of Lawful Good behavior. I'm not saying that Paladins can brutally slaughter whoever they wish or that they should ruthlessly twist the code. Some Paladins might feel that they should allow such people to live. Other Paladins might not. But given the FAQ has spoken, the decision is a player one. Not a DM one. At least in LG. Now if the player uses torture or gives the condemned some sort of false hope, then he's outside the area protected by the FAQ and then the DM can and should step in. |
| Timlagor02-29-08, 11:10 AM | I'm just going to repeat that imo killing Evil creatures is always a good act. (rather surprised no one took issue with that directly the first time around ;)) |
| copperwyrmling02-29-08, 01:59 PM | I'm just going to repeat that imo killing Evil creatures is always a good act. (rather surprised no one took issue with that directly the first time around ;)) I think you're completely wrong, and on my tables I'll enforce that (if your paladin murders an unarmed and defenceless person who has offered them no threat, just because they're radiating evil, then byebye paladinhood - and I did say this in an earlier post), but I see very little point in arguing real-world morality on a D&D messageboard ;) |
| _metz_02-29-08, 10:10 PM | I'm just going to repeat that imo killing Evil creatures is always a good act. (rather surprised no one took issue with that directly the first time around ;)) I'll bite :) alignments can change Tim. You are killing evil 'potential energy' lol, which may change in the future, or could have been changed by you. That person may have been evil only for the last ten minutes as a result of wanting to enact excessive revenge due to strong psychological trauma, etc. Its not back and white, which is why I hate the current alignment system, as well as dislike people who translate good crusader into 'it radiates evil I smite it' Thats not what the original idea of the shining night was about. IT was about spreading good. And defeating its enemies as well. Note the first bit. In fact no evil may have been done by the person, just because they radiate it... They could just be going through a teenage phase! This is why I think detect evil is the dumbest class feature around. I hope it is NOT around as a first level spell like ability in 4th edition. |
| BlackNova16903-01-08, 05:07 PM | I'll bite :) alignments can change Tim. You are killing evil 'potential energy' lol, which may change in the future, or could have been changed by you. That person may have been evil only for the last ten minutes as a result of wanting to enact excessive revenge due to strong psychological trauma, etc. Its not back and white, which is why I hate the current alignment system, as well as dislike people who translate good crusader into 'it radiates evil I smite it' Thats not what the original idea of the shining night was about. IT was about spreading good. And defeating its enemies as well. Note the first bit. In fact no evil may have been done by the person, just because they radiate it... They could just be going through a teenage phase! This is why I think detect evil is the dumbest class feature around. I hope it is NOT around as a first level spell like ability in 4th edition. I think you guys are getting confused about what being an evil creature is. You arn't an evil creature if you have angry or even murderous thoughts of revenge for 10 minutes (although that means you're probably not good aligned either). It takes much more than that to have your alignment set to 'evil.' When your group happens upon a group of goblins/drow/orcs and the party paladin detects evil in the group, its not just because the monster manual says they're (usually) evil, its because the goblins regularly attack the locals farms, killing the farmers, torturing the farmers wives and slaughtering their children in beds. Its easy in D&D to see creatures as existing for the 30 second timeframe between meeting your party and your party wiping them out, but this group of creatures was doing its own thing long before they met you, and will continue to do their thing long after you leave them. So here's my scenario. Your group of 5 paladins and a wizard come upon a group of 20 goblins (the ones slaughtering local farmsteads) and the wizard sleeps 5 goblins. The paladins mop up the other 15 and are left with 5 sleeping goblins. What do they do? Leave the goblins be? If left alone the goblins will continue to slaughter innocents, lives that you could have saved. Tie them up and bring them to 'the law?' The law (assuming you are using the human's laws and not the goblins!) will most likely warrent immediate execution of the goblins. Is it evil to pawn off your 'helpless murder' onto another person? Tie them up and convert them from their evil ways? Sure this would be ideal, but is converting the masses of evil goblins really feasible? I don't think so. Coup de Grace the goblins as they sleep? A previous poster said that he would take a paladin's class away if he 'murders' helpless creatures. Does it matter if the goblins are sleeping or awake when you kill them? If it does, to you, what if I shake the goblins awake, hand them a dagger, and then run them through? It seems more humane to me to execute them while they're sleeping. As you can probably tell I'm a supporter of the "Killing evil creatures is always a good act" I'm going to state right here that this doesn't mean "Killing creatures who radiate evil is always good" since that isn't foolproof. A creature has an evil alignment if they debase or destroy innocent life for either fun or profit. As a paladin, or just any good aligned character who is devoted to protecting innocent life, it is their duty to wipe out those who would destroy innocent life. I also think that people very often get GOOD confused with HONORABLE. It is definately a good act to kill a sleeping goblin who skins elf children for fun (and will continue to do so indefinately until stopped) but it may not necessarily be honorable to kill him in his sleep. I'll mention that the paladin class description says the paladin loses his class abilities if he commits an EVIL act willingly. Acting dishonorably may cause him to lose face with his church/knighthood but his divine powers won't be lost (keep in mind that repeated dishonorable acts will most likely lead to an evil act anyways). One really good book series that I've read that touches on the aspects of good & evil is the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind. ~Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. ~Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. |
| copperwyrmling03-01-08, 09:59 PM | I think you guys are getting confused about what being an evil creature is. You arn't an evil creature if you have angry or even murderous thoughts of revenge for 10 minutes (although that means you're probably not good aligned either). It takes much more than that to have your alignment set to 'evil.' No, but a kobold child, or someone who's been subjected to a Morality Undone spell (yes, I have seen this in LG), may be Evil and radiate Evil without ever having committed an evil act. You can be Evil in D&D purely by virtue of your attitude towards the rest of the world, rather than your deeds. "A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment." When your group happens upon a group of goblins/drow/orcs and the party paladin detects evil in the group, its not just because the monster manual says they're (usually) evil, its because the goblins regularly attack the locals farms, killing the farmers, torturing the farmers wives and slaughtering their children in beds. This might be correct in a particular case, but it's not necessarily true, and cannot be deduced from their auras. (Also, "goblins killing humans" does not necessarily mean the goblins are in the wrong.) So here's my scenario. Your group of 5 paladins and a wizard come upon a group of 20 goblins (the ones slaughtering local farmsteads) and the wizard sleeps 5 goblins. If you come upon them WHILE they are launching an unprovoked attack against a local farmstead, then it's a combat situation, and I would have no problem with the paladins coup-de-grace'ing the sleeping goblins (to remove them as a threat). If you've just heard that there are dangerous goblins in the area and you attack the first goblins you see with lethal force, then that might be an evil act if it turns out these weren't the goblins you were looking for. Tie them up and bring them to 'the law?' The law (assuming you are using the human's laws and not the goblins!) will most likely warrent immediate execution of the goblins. Is it evil to pawn off your 'helpless murder' onto another person? Replace "goblins" with "human bandits". Reconsider the question. If your answer changes, then it doesn't have much to do with their alignment. Killing humans who you know have committed a capital crime probably isn't Evil, but it probably is unLawful, which may or may not be a problem depending on your paladin's personal code of ethics and where you are. Coup de Grace the goblins as they sleep? A previous poster said that he would take a paladin's class away if he 'murders' helpless creatures. If you're talking about me, I said I would take a paladin's paladinhood away if he murdered defenceless creatures who had not done anything remotely hostile or threatening, purely because they had Evil auras. (In the situation in which this came up, the creatures in question had just been rescued from an Iuzian prison, where they had been subjected to BoVD spells that change your alignment to Evil. They had previously been good/neutral, had not committed any crimes much less capital crimes, and were unarmed, in very poor condition, and very grateful to the PCs for rescuing them.) Note also that I've been GMing LG for three and a half years now and have never given anyone an evil act notation, and I think that's the only time I warned someone. I don't think my view of evil acts is too far outside the mainstream. As a paladin, or just any good aligned character who is devoted to protecting innocent life, it is their duty to wipe out those who would destroy innocent life. What about those that just "debase" it? Killing someone because of what you think they would do if they had the chance is also rather morally dubious. One really good book series that I've read that touches on the aspects of good & evil is the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind. Heh. I enjoyed the first book, then felt that the series went steadily downhill until Book 6, which is where I stopped reading in disgust. |
| O_ConfusedOne03-02-08, 12:34 AM | Replace "goblins" with "human bandits". Reconsider the question. If your answer changes, then it doesn't have much to do with their alignment. Killing humans who you know have committed a capital crime probably isn't Evil, but it probably is unLawful, which may or may not be a problem depending on your paladin's personal code of ethics and where you are. Copper-- You have me a bit confused. The word "unLawful" above is confusing me. There are two definitions of lawful....and I'm unsure which one you mean. Lawful (with a capital L) I think refers to Lawful/Chaotic axis within the DnD alignment system. lawful (with a small l) I think refers to the legality of an action with a city/state/government...i.e. theft, murder, chickensmuggling. Being Lawful (capital L), as you know, doesn't mean "one who follows the laws of a state or goverment"...but that one has a consistent personal code that one follows. Being lawful (small L) means you're obeying the laws of the state or goverment that you're in. Which did you mean when you said "unLawful"? I don't think we have enough information about the Paladin's Lawfulness (capital L...his code of ethics, personal beliefs, etc) to know that he's breaking his personal code. A Lawful Paladin does NOT have to follow the laws of the land...but they do coincide for the most part. If he would consistently kill human bandits, I don't think I can argue he's not being Lawful. If you meant unlawful, as in murder is against the law, then I would agree that's he's likely to be acting unlawfully (assume the city/state he's in prohibits murder), but I don't think he has to turn himself in. But, on the chance that you meant BOTH unLawful and unlawful, then we probably agree...we don't have enough information to truly know (which is why you put the probably in there). I guess this is a pet peeve of mine...too many people don't understand the difference between Lawful and lawful. But then again, I might be wrong. Am I? O_CO |
| clannagh03-02-08, 07:07 PM | There is a distinct tension between intent and deed in this. An example that comes to mind might be an evil aligned entity that adopts and brings up in a loving caring protective manner a child it knows (via a prophecy) will in later life bring great evil into the world. The actions may be lawful and good. The entity is evil and the end result is evil. |
| _metz_03-02-08, 10:06 PM | There is a distinct tension between intent and deed in this. An example that comes to mind might be an evil aligned entity that adopts and brings up in a loving caring protective manner a child it knows (via a prophecy) will in later life bring great evil into the world. The actions may be lawful and good. The entity is evil and the end result is evil. Don't you bring Mens Rea and Actus Reus into this Glenn, that will only escalate things :) |
| Timlagor03-04-08, 02:33 PM | My understanding of the 3.5 rules is that consequences are extremely important while intent matters not at all.* - thus killing something that would go off and do bad stuff is good - nurturing said child is evil I'm not so sure about the magically changed victim. If their alignment is genuinely evil then I'd have to consider killing them to be better than releasing them. While it's definitely not as good as redeeming them I think I'd still rate it a Good Act myself (Neutral at worst). * This does not mean that I don't think intent should matter -I just don't think it does under the RAW for D&D3.5 |
| solbergb03-07-08, 02:02 PM | not so sure about that Tim....the Atonment rules have intent as a mechanical qualification (if you did something unwittingly, no XP cost for the cleric. If you knew it was wrong, did it anyway and are now sorry, the cleric can intercede and pay XP and get you back in the good graces. Very catholic churchish, except there is no mechanic for the sinner to do penance beyond what the church demands to cast the atonement) |
| GrahamWills03-07-08, 04:45 PM | A creature has an evil alignment if they debase or destroy innocent life for either fun or profit. Way too limiting. A devout cleric of an evil god who sacrifices innocent life to the glory of Vecna would not qualify as evil under this argument. People on this thread should go read the BoED section before the post about what evil is in D&D. It's fairly explicitly defined there, and if you don't like it, fair enough, but then post that this is your personal opinion, not standard D&D. |
| MwaO03-07-08, 05:20 PM | People on this thread should go read the BoED section before the post about what evil is in D&D. It's fairly explicitly defined there, and if you don't like it, fair enough, but then post that this is your personal opinion, not standard D&D. Don't you mean BoVD? And that isn't standard D&D. BoED makes it abundantly clear in the intro that it is optional material for groups that want to address the issue of what is Good and how to become an Exalted level of Good as opposed to merely standard D&D Good. In any case, if we're using BoVD/BoED, it is absolutely okay to kill an evil opponent lying on the ground - the Crime And Punishment section notes that "the death penalty for serious crimes is commonly practiced and widely accepted and does not qualify as evil." - there are situations where it is best to take someone back to town to stand trial, but that is not defined as an absolute in BoED. |
| GrahamWills03-07-08, 05:29 PM | No, I mean BoED. And yes, *of course* it is optional, but it the description of good acts and necessary violence is not listed as a "higher level of good"; the book itself is optional, but I do not see any support for your claim that the book re-defines good, rather than amplifying the definition and alowing MORE options for good-based play. It's like saying that since MM2 is optional, the monsters in it are not representative of "standard D&D". Sure, they are not standard monsters, but it would be silly to say they do not represent standard D&D thinking on monsters. Similarly, saying that since BoED is not required we can safely ignore all it has to say on good acts and pretend it has no relevance to discussions on good and evil in D&D seems seems unreasonable. From a pure rules POV, you are correct, but from the perspective of understanding what good and evil are in D&D, I would think they are relevant, |
| MwaO03-07-08, 07:00 PM | No, I mean BoED. And yes, *of course* it is optional, but it the description of good acts and necessary violence is not listed as a "higher level of good"; the book itself is optional, but I do not see any support for your claim that the book re-defines good, rather than amplifying the definition and alowing MORE options for good-based play. It mentions that 'is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a world shattering catastrophe' The answer is no in BoED. And in BoVD, replace small lie with killing someone(person poisoning a town example) and the answer is yes, it is acceptable. In other words, Monte has a different idea about what defines an Evil act than what James Wyatt does. In Monte's book, a lie is not by definition an evil act. In BoED, it somehow is such. Monte says there are grey acts, James Wyatt argues otherwise. BoED is about Exalted(aka dumb) level of goodness, not everyday good acts. Don't even get me started on what EGG would have said about the ridiculous Mercy section... |
| RanielK03-10-08, 11:22 AM | I think you're completely wrong, and on my tables I'll enforce that (if your paladin murders an unarmed and defenceless person who has offered them no threat, just because they're radiating evil, then byebye paladinhood - and I did say this in an earlier post), but I see very little point in arguing real-world morality on a D&D messageboard ;) Well, that is a contrived set up. I can equally contrive a set up where not killing them would be evil. My favorite is the prisoner delima from Saving Private Ryan which happens after the squad disrupts the ambush. They have a German they know is just going to cause them a world of hurt if they try and take him on their mission. They can't abandon the mission to find another allied unity to hand him off. If they let him go, they know for a fact he will do his best to find a local German unit and report their last know coordinates and direction of travel. The German may not know their mission but a group of elite soldiers heading into "enemy territory" (read his country's territory) isn't a good thing. So leaving him to his own devices will cause trouble for "the side of good" (we're assuming the squad are the PCs and the PCs stand for good or at least should in LG). Taking the time to turn him over to authorities will mean mission failure and the death of the one they were sent to save (time is as much the enemy as the Germans it is a battlefield after all). The German in this case was not bound or unarmed. He just wasn't armed to parity with his enemies (he did have his freedom and a shovel). Now, going around DE'ing the countryside and stabbing everything that radiates even faint evil is imho an evil act. Stopping a group of baddies consisting of evil creatures when your out in the boonies and deciding not to take prisoners is not. There is nothing that say you have to take prisoners, especially when the enemy knows they can exploit that to live to kill innocents another day. Anything short of letting them go is killing them, by the bye. Leaving them tied up in the wilderness is either a) freeing them by letting them work loose their bonds or having their friends come by or b) klling them by having them helpless in the wilderness to be gnawed on by wild animals, the random dragon, or their "friends." So which do you do? Free them anyway to go back to what they were doing, kill them by proxy ("it wasn't me, it was nature!") or just kill them outright? Now, if you've got nothing but time, the whole question is moot. Take them back to be questioned by the local authorities so they can learn first hand what your party knows. And if we're not talking about creatures that are Always CE or NE or LE and dealing with one bandit, it would depend on the bandit and what you gleen about him from Divinational type spells (i.e. motivation, alignment, and future plans). |
| RanielK03-10-08, 11:53 AM | Way too limiting. A devout cleric of an evil god who sacrifices innocent life to the glory of Vecna would not qualify as evil under this argument. Really? That cleric is really doing good, or not doing evil? Their intent is really not for profit or personal gain? There are evil gods who are worshiped (worshiped not appeased) by devout followers for the great benefit of the society at no gain to the worshiper? Now devout evil worshipers can forward their societies goals with no immediate gain, but chances are they joined said society for some personal gain. People on this thread should go read the BoED section before the post about what evil is in D&D. It's fairly explicitly defined there, and if you don't like it, fair enough, but then post that this is your personal opinion, not standard D&D. Sure, BoED and BoVD both have essays on what is Good or Evil. But those are still ranges and suggestions and examples. Evil and Good are still relative and subjective. After all, I know of some Judges who stripped paladins of their status and Good clerics of their connection to their deities for completing an Olman alter to trap demons away forever. The justification was most Olman gods have the Death portfolio (and specifically the ones associated with said alter) and all Deities with the Death protfolio MUST be Evil (especially Olman ones) because necromancy is evil. Thankfully, most Triads who heard of this handed out free attonements automatically. A bit off base (Wee Jas comes to mind) and a real stretch was made to come to that ruling. However, it shows how what is Evil is subjective. The judge did have a logical reason. |
| RanielK03-10-08, 11:58 AM | No, I mean BoED. And yes, *of course* it is optional, but it the description of good acts and necessary violence is not listed as a "higher level of good"; the book itself is optional, but I do not see any support for your claim that the book re-defines good, rather than amplifying the definition and alowing MORE options for good-based play. It's like saying that since MM2 is optional, the monsters in it are not representative of "standard D&D". Sure, they are not standard monsters, but it would be silly to say they do not represent standard D&D thinking on monsters. Similarly, saying that since BoED is not required we can safely ignore all it has to say on good acts and pretend it has no relevance to discussions on good and evil in D&D seems seems unreasonable. From a pure rules POV, you are correct, but from the perspective of understanding what good and evil are in D&D, I would think they are relevant, Nah, BoED is no more "standard D&D thinking on Good and Evil" than Epic Handbook was "standard" D&D thinking on leveling up. These are both extremes. BoED is the height of perfection of Goodness which is mostly unobtainable by even Paladins. This is Saint level stuff. Bhodisatva level stuff. This is Bhudda under the tree contemplating the universe before ascending to the next higher conciousness type stuff. Sure their are mechanics which can add a splash of interesting. I still wish that on Meta Regional mod had not been edited to take out access to Sacred Vow and Vow of Peace! However, it is not something that either the average PC or the average Player can really carry off on a daily basis. |
| Newpaintbrush04-05-08, 05:32 PM | Hey All-- I've been playing LG for under a year and a few weeks ago I ran across a situation that makes me realize that I may not understand a) the alignments in general, b) the Living Greyhawk system, or c) something else. Or maybe some combination thereof. It has to do with what a Living Greyhawk party does with a beaten opponent who is helpless (either with less than 0 hp but more than -10 or incapacited via whatever, uh, I dunno Hold Person). Now, I'm trying to get some rules of thumbs to go on here. I'm going to write a scenario and, by making it as wide a possible, try to figure out how and why people feel their answer is best...especially since I really can't find this answer in any rulebook (but then again, I don't own many). Rule of thumb is what your DM says. Let me describe the situation: 1) My APL4 party of 6 brave, brave adventurers is happily walking in LOCATIONZ where we are ambused by two XXXX!!! 2) Bravely we fought and defeated our attackers!! Huzzah!! One bad guy was killed outright...the other was down to -3 hp and bleeding out. 3) I said to the party and DM, "I'll go finish off the remaining XXXX." I walked to the XXXX at -3 hp and prepared to end the thing. If I were DMing your table, I would rule it an evil act unless you thought that creature were really going to potentially cause life-threatening problems for the party. 4) A few players took exception to that (but the DM did not)*. They argued that it would be an evil act. "We have to take it in for justice." I was fine with taking it in for justice, I just don't understand the "HAVE TO" part of the equation. The DM did not rule it ebil. SLICE! DICE! Chop 'em up, Sally, and add onions to mine. What the DM says is law. 5) And after discussing this issue with a few people at the table, I realize that I don't get it. What it comes down to is the creature is helpless. You are not threatened by the creature in any way. Killing the creature is not even remotely a matter of self-defense (at least it doesn't sound like it from your description). Hence, what it comes down to is that your character wants to kill the creature just because your character feels like it. Hm, why do evil creatures kill things? OH YEAH! See now? If you were surrounded by enemies or in a time-sensitive situation or you thought the creature had nearby allies, or for some other reasons, there are any number of reasons why you could kill the creature. But if the creature is REALLY helpless and there's no reason to kill it other than the hell of it (pun!) - well, you see? Now, I haven't told you my character's alignment, nor where it happened, nor what the creature was. Here are the things I don't get.... Your alignment doesn't really matter. Your race might. (Dwarves could make a case for "goblins are just EVIL, they have to DIE, our ANCESTRAL ENEMIES! KILLLLL!" Where doesn't matter unless it made your party think allowing the creature to live would put them in danger. What the creature was does make a difference. Killing an INHERENTLY evil creature like a demon or devil is one matter. Killing a bugbear that might have a wife and kids at home is another matter. a) Is there any difference between letting a XXXX bleed out rather than granting it the sweet, sweet mercy of my axe? Yes. One is pretty callous. The other is outright murder (barring extenuating circumstances). Courts sometimes apply something along the lines of "failure to act reasonably", but the penalties for such are less than actually taking part in a crime. b) Exactly what are the rules for knowing what we have to "bring back to town for justice?" You can figure it out. You're a smart guy. Is it alignment? Creature subtype? Humanoidity? Local laws? Well if it can't think, it probably can't change its ways anyways. If it can think but is inherently evil, it should probably just be killed. Local laws are of course important - if you want to go around breaking local laws, you might run into some nasty consequences. c) Does location matter in determining what we have to "bring back to justice"? In a dungeon? 1 mile out of town? 150 miles from the nearest town? Look, it's not just a question of "bringing something in to justice". You could always rob and tie up the helpless character, and there's a big difference between robbing and typing up a helpless character and just dropping an axe on his head. If you strip something down and tie it up, by the time it works loose, it's probably running away. d) Does my alignment matter? I'm non-evil (and non-chaotic). I've read and re-read the PH (pgs 103-104) about alignments and mine in particular and I can't see anything that says I have to "bring things in for justice." Look, you can have a lawful good guy that kills a helpless being in cold blood. Circumstance is king. (Well really, then, the DM is like emperor, but whatever.) e) Is finishing off the badguy, if it's wrong, an EVIL act or a CHAOTIC act or BOTH? Helpless? Sentient? Not inherently evil? No real reason to kill it? In such cases, killing the badguy is an EVIL act; I would warn the character that killing the badguy would remove the character from the campaign. (I'm pretty lenient with reasons, but there has to be a REAL reason, not "OMG green pants! Crime against fashion, DIE!") It would be nice if I knew where to find the core rules or Living Greyhawk guidelines or whatever that would help me play these things in the future. Opinions are welcome, but I'd love some solid rules for reading and thought. Thanks. Bottom line, it's up to you if you want to kill helpless creatures. The consequences are up to the DM and your fellow players. You wanna bash a skull in and your DM and fellow players are OK with it, fine. If your DM says no, prepare to lose your character (although your DM should warn you first). If your fellow players object - well, you can still do it but you antagonize your fellow players. Confused One * = I recognize that the DM has a responsibility (it's in the LGCS) to let me know if I was about to commit an evil act. But that won't help me in the future. ** = Yes, I live in the Pale and they have some funky laws and stuff...but I don't think that is a part of this discussion. Man, it SHOULD be a part of this discussion. Hell, you can't drop an "Evard's Black Tentacles" in a city in Keoland without some stupid villager reporting you. And don't get me started on circumstance penalties to interacting with villagers when they find you have an animated shield. Buncha backward hicks . . . I'm sure Theocracy of the Pale has its own weird things that you should know about and adhere to. |
| Timlagor04-06-08, 03:01 AM | Alignment and how people react to you are two totally seperate issues. |
| Fsi-Dib04-08-08, 12:38 AM | As much as I love your alignment conversation, I'm interested what *YOU* think of the following: Adventures venture to a mausoleum, and decapitate each and every corpse they find. Even those, whom they were sent to look for. Note, that one of those who was supposed to be in the mausoleum had been risen as a zombie. I DM'd, and took it as an exaggerated safety manuever. Sure, they might rise as undead. |
| _metz_04-08-08, 12:45 AM | As much as I love your alignment conversation, I'm interested what *YOU* think of the following: Adventures venture to a mausoleum, and decapitate each and every corpse they find. Even those, whom they were sent to look for. Note, that one of those who was supposed to be in the mausoleum had been risen as a zombie. I DM'd, and took it as an exaggerated safety manuever. Sure, they might rise as undead. Could be lawful, chaotic, or evil (if it was desecrating the corpses) it is all dependent on context. Context is something not often taken into account unfortuantely... |
| Timlagor04-08-08, 12:10 PM | There's nothing inherently bad about decapitating a corpse. The only badness there is in offence to their relatives. I don't think there are any alignment issues in chopping their heads off barring other context -possibly chaotic if they had agreed to bring back one of the bodies in tact. Possibly good if they had reason to believe the corpses would otherwise rise as undead and this would prevent it. |
| NiTessine04-08-08, 12:21 PM | There's nothing inherently bad about decapitating a corpse. The only badness there is in offence to their relatives. I don't think there are any alignment issues in chopping their heads off barring other context -possibly chaotic if they had agreed to bring back one of the bodies in tact. Possibly good if they had reason to believe the corpses would otherwise rise as undead and this would prevent it. Yeah. I was present at the game. We had cause to believe there were undead about, which was later confirmed. It was a safety precaution that I consider quite reasonable, although my Wee Jas -worshiping scout/ranger frowned upon it as a desecration of the body. I would say that under the circumstances, it was a pragmatic, alignment-neutral act. |
| Vamroc04-10-08, 03:19 PM | There are some mods I've played where if you don't kill every thing in the encounter it returns to fight you again with new items making it even harder it kill. |
| Timlagor04-10-08, 09:15 PM | They come back with MORE LOOT?!? :D |
| Vamroc04-12-08, 01:07 PM | They come back with MORE LOOT?!? :D Arrrr more booty for tha plunderin. |