Post/Author/DateTime	Post
underpantsgnome 01-16-04, 12:55 AM	Just started an online game, and we just finished our 3rd session. It was also the 1st combat encounter; the party was ambushed by 3 goblin grunts and a goblin adept. It went well I'd say, only the baddies died and no big hoop-la about rules, well, I was pleased. Anyway, they kept 3 of the gobbos (2 grunts and the adept) alive for questioning partaining to their current mission, quest....thing (sry had to do that). After questioning, one of the PCs quietly took the goblins off into the woods aways, quietly killed them and returned. His reasoning was along the lines of "They live by the sword, killing innocence (which they had direct proof that these particular goblins did), and raiding, so its best to kill them before they turn around and commit evil acts". I was ok with that (though i sugested that he disarm them and tie them to a tree), as Im not a huge stickler for alignments. Basically, Im looking for multiple takes on this, so agree with one of these, or make your own... Do you guys(gals): A) Figure the gobbos would have had their heads smashed anyway, better late than never. B) Think that once in a blue moon, its ok, but too often and his alignment will start to drift towards CN and eventually CE. C) HEARTLESS BASTARD!!! HE'S PLAYING CE ALREADY, WHY NOT JUST CHANGE IT! -Thanks
Threeyore 01-16-04, 02:07 AM	Well, if goblins are predominantly evil in your campaign, I'd think killing the occasional goblin wouldn't hurt one's alignment. *shrugs* But talking about the specifics, the goblins were hostile and made the first move ("the party was ambushed"), which certainly makes them threats to others. And if they were going for lethal damage, it's only fair to consider them guilty of attempted murder. My ranking would fall along these lines-- Predominantly evil and using lethal damage: Definitely A No alignment stereotype and using lethal damage: Near totally A, a speck of B Predominantly evil and attempting to subdue: A or B No alignment stereotype and attempting to subdue: B with a smidgen of A (if death is considered a fitting punishment for any type of attacker) Which makes me wonder exactly why they ambushed the characters. *dun dun dunnnn*
Millennium 01-16-04, 10:24 AM	You said that there was proof that these particular goblins had been killing innocents. In that case, there's no problem with alignment as far as Good is concerned. Lawful is a bit more iffy -justice was dispensed, but not within a structured system- but given that evidence was involved I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Star Warrior X 01-16-04, 11:03 AM	I'm one of the players in UPG's online campaign, but not the one in question. I'd like to give a little more background, as I am of the 'B' opinion. We were ambushed by these goblins, and, in the ensuing battle, killed one of them and subdued the other three. Then we questioned the three captives about their operation and their leader and whatnot. We searched the area and found the bodies of the goblins' previous victims. Then after we had questioned them, found out that there were three more in a nearby camp, and headed off to deal with them, this guy takes our (now helpless) captives into the woods and comes back with a bloody sword.
Fixxxer 01-16-04, 11:13 AM	I suppose a small part of things depends on the PC's feelings about what was done. Did he take the goblins to the woods, tie them to a tree and toy with them gleefully before killing them? Did he make them fight to the death for his amusement? Or did he simply take them out there and give them a swift execution? There's a fine line between murder and execution. It sounds to me like this was execution. It doesn't sound like the PC got mad and slaughtered them so much as he simply did what he believed needed to be done. Even a paladin is allowed to perform an execution, though in that specific of a case, I would assume it to be done only after a fair judgement (a trial or whatnot).