Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Delvesdeep 05-11-05, 02:10 AM	A Lawful Good Cleric has an evil creature surrender on her. She believes from previous experience that if she let the creature live it would not only continue to do evil but most likely harm the party in the near future. She believes death is the only just sentence for an unredeming villian. Others claim she (& they) she tie the evil creature up and leave him there but one member says the creature would surely die of starvation. Another pipes up stating that they should take the creature to the closest authorities to put them on trial but in the adventure time is of the essence and this would mean the death of countless innocents. The cleric hands the creature a weapon and demands it defends itself but it refuses saying it would die. What is the appropriate thing to do in this situation for a Lawful Good Cleric and a Good Aligned party??? Delvesdeep:b:
Flushmaster 05-11-05, 02:26 AM	If there is undeniable proof that the creature is evil and you honestly don't believe it to be redeemable, kill it. In some situations in an adventurer's career there just isn't time for due process. Admitting that you can't survive by resisting doesn't mean that good guys have to let you go just because you stopped fighting. To be fair, the cleric in question should point out to the creature before accepting it's surrender that she fully intends to execute it for it's crimes if it does. A bit of flavor would be to promise that, if the creature submits, its death will be quick and rather painless compared to what most others would do to it, knowing what it had done to others. If it's convenient to bring the creature to an auhority that the character respects as just and fair for "due process" then they should. But if the options are to free an assuredly evil and dangerous creature or kill it, kill it. It's common sense. Lawful good does not mean lawful stupid. For further explanation of lawful stupid, check the link in my sig.
Ut-Napishtim 05-11-05, 02:43 AM	I'm pretty much with Flushmaster on this. If this opponent is an adult of a creature type that has "usually evil," "always evil," or "almost always evil," in it's alignment entry then killing it quickly would be far more merciful and good than leaving it to starve. That being said if it's a creature type that has "neutral," or something else (all PC races in the PHB for example) as it's alignment entry then it's capable of redemption and the Cleric should work to see that due process is carried out believing that the creature has the capacity to change it's ways. :twocents:
SnowbearK 05-11-05, 02:50 AM	A Lawful Good Cleric has an evil creature surrender on her. She believes from previous experience that if she let the creature live it would not only continue to do evil but most likely harm the party in the near future. Fair enough, evil is evil is evil, and they cannot be trusted. However, Good must not lower itself to the same level of its foes by using their thought processes. She believes death is the only just sentence for an unredeming villian. How fanatical. Is she to then be the judge of who cannot be redeemed? Isn't that usually the gods' jurisdiction? Perhaps a prayer of guidance or a simple augury would help. Others claim she (& they) she tie the evil creature up and leave him there but one member says the creature would surely die of starvation. It might. It might be eaten by another creature. It might also grow heliotrope wings and start spontaneously spewing wishes out it's hind end. In any case, this is certainly not a good nor a lawful thing to do. Another pipes up stating that they should take the creature to the closest authorities to put them on trial but in the adventure time is of the essence and this would mean the death of countless innocents. The first part is certainly lawful and good, but the cost of doing so is much too great, this option is definitely out. The cleric hands the creature a weapon and demands it defends itself but it refuses saying it would die. Probably a fair assessment of the situation, and a LG Cleric should have a problem simply overwhelming a, for all practical purposes, helpless enemy. What is the appropriate thing to do in this situation for a Lawful Good Cleric and a Good Aligned party??? Bring the prisoner with you. Failing that: being lawful good, with a good-aligned party, if the charges against the foe would normally warrant a death penalty in a good-aligned country, and the entire party has borne witness to the deeds of the prisoner, and there are no authority figures within a reasonable distance (weighing the lives of countless innocent people), then the PCs are by default, the Authorities. Advise the prisoner that he will die for his crimes against all that is good in the world, give him some time to prepare his soul for the afterlife, then carry out the sentence then and there without malice. After returning to civilization, the cleric should definitely make a full report to his superiors within his religion, as well as prepare a statement, memo, or report of some kind to be delivered to the state authorities.
VerinBlod 05-11-05, 04:26 AM	Bring the prisoner with you. Failing that: being lawful good, with a good-aligned party, if the charges against the foe would normally warrant a death penalty in a good-aligned country, and the entire party has borne witness to the deeds of the prisoner, and there are no authority figures within a reasonable distance (weighing the lives of countless innocent people), then the PCs are by default, the Authorities. Advise the prisoner that he will die for his crimes against all that is good in the world, give him some time to prepare his soul for the afterlife, then carry out the sentence then and there without malice. After returning to civilization, the cleric should definitely make a full report to his superiors within his religion, as well as prepare a statement, memo, or report of some kind to be delivered to the state authorities. I totally agree with you on this one. Sometimes a good aligned party hasn't got the time to bring someone to justice and she than has to bring justice herself. But only if bringing a prisoner with you would be too much trouble or would endanger the outcome of the party's quest.
Gedrin 05-11-05, 04:32 AM	Assuming that: The party has no means to effectively contain the villian without putting the lives of others in immediate and grave danger (no charms, geases, or Flesh to Stone + Portable Hole). The party has no means to turn over the villian to the proper authorities (no teleport spells, no summonable griffon to fly him away, and the mission is certain to fail if they take the time to drop him off). The party's mission is, without doubt (to them), of critical importance and vital to the immediate protection of those they have sworn to protect. The party is in an area where there is no access to just and rightful third party authority. The villian is, beyond reasonable doubt to the party, guilty of grave evils. The villian will, beyond reasonable doubt to the party, continue to commit grave evils (posing as serious threat to the mission counts). The villian has been offered the legitimate opportunity to repent and either refused or failed to make a convincing go of it (he's likely a known liar, you aren't obligated to believe him blindly, but he could be sincere). If all these conditions are true, then yes, you really have to take matters into your own hands. Failing to execute the prisoner places the mission, and therefore the lives of many others, in serious danger. Under these conditions, there is no external authority that is accessable without abandoning the quest, and the villian poses a continuing threat. The goal is to prevent the villian from doing evil or disrupting the mission. If executing him is the only way, the it is the only way. However, it's important to note that it is much more common for it to be merely inconvenient to carry the prisoner around, rather than it to be impossible. A prisoner being inconvenient is very different than them being a threat to the mission. If the prisoner can be stopped from doing evil by some method of containment, that should be used. There are a lot of good reasons that we normally have justice arbitrated by third parties. Going against that is not a good idea, and you wouldn't want others to do so either. You wouldn't want to execute prisoners without some sort of due process either. Still, we're talking about a wilderness delima, and while we might want to apeal to third party authorities or hold a trial, there are no third parties available (without sacrificing the mission), and a trial is somewhat pointless considering the party are likely all eye witnesses. Now, the whole "give him a weapon" thing is just silly. If the party intends to execute the guy, just do it. State the crimes. Point out the lack of remorse. State the punishment. Offer final religious services. Kill the man as quickly and painlessly as possible. Proper burrial. The whole charade of a duel is pointless. I'm inclined to be suspicious of the cleric based just on this. If the priest were confident of the necessity of the act, there wouldn't really be a need to pretend it was self defense.
FriendoftheDork 05-11-05, 04:50 AM	AN interesting dilemma. This situation reminds me of the event in "Saving Private Ryan" There the soldiers capture a enemy soldier. He is probably not evil at all, seemingly just a human fighting on the other side of the war. They can't take him prisoner because they're behind enemy lines, and they can't bring him with them because of supplies and stealth. In the movie they let him go and tell to surrender to the nearest allied forces he can find, but instead he joins up with his own forces and comes back to kill several of them later on. Despite that I'd say the good thing was to let him go. In the case of a truly evil creature, things become different. You say that paladins cannot judge, and I say you're wrong. Paladins in D&D are generally far better judges than the normal authorities, because of his ability to detect evil and righteousness of heart. I'd give the villain a quick and painless death, which is more than he deservers. Then a burial and a prayer for his soul. Bottom line, if a secular D&D court can sentence a criminal to death, then so should a paladin of a good deity be able to. The cleric could perform an Augury perhaps, but those are not 100% accurate. Better to just pray to their gods for guidance and if there is no answer or feeling then do what they think is right.
Flushmaster 05-11-05, 05:07 AM	Paladins in D&D are generally far better judges than the normal authorities, because of his ability to detect evil and righteousness of heart. Paladins are. However, in my experience, at least half of the people who play paladins haven't the slightest clue what "lawful good" actually entails. These are the players who either slaughter anything that detects with the slightest hint of evil or the ones that try to talk the ogre/red dragon.orcs/etc into stopping their attack on the village and if they actually come to the point of combat they either do subdual damage or use lay on hands or heal checks to stabilize their fallen foes in the middle of the fight while the comrades of their "patient" continue to loot, burn, rape, pillage, kill, etc all around them. Neither is worthy of being called "good" due to the unnecessary suffering they cause, either directly or indirectly through lack of decisive action. What they are is lawful stupid, and they don't deserve to judge the fate of a grilled cheese sandwich.
SnowbearK 05-11-05, 06:20 AM	Flushmaster, you haven't much experience then, have you? It's always at least 75%. ;) :D FriendoftheDork>> Firstly, nobody said anything about a paladin. This thread is about a LG cleric and her good-aligned party. Secondly, a Paladin can't rely on Detect Evil to determine who is redeemable and who should be slain on the spot. Simply having the ability to Detect Evil doesn't make you any better of a judge than anyone else. It makes for a much better investigator, certainly...but not a better judge. In fact, it's the paladin's "righteousness of heart" that impedes their abilities as a judge. Simply put, even an Evil person can be innocent of a crime for which they are accused. It takes an impartial judge to determine that from the evidence presented. Hence the reason the God of Justice is LN. As for simply praying "to their gods for guidance and if there is no answer or feeling then do what they think is right." If your DM is playing the gods of the campaign as Phone-A-Friend lifelines, I really feel sorry for the players. The augury is a game-mechanic for learning the future or the will of your deity through a questioning prayer. There are a great number of spells on the cleric list for divination of the correct course of action. If it's a higher level party, Commune works pretty nicely too.
Andrew_980 05-11-05, 08:03 AM	this is why my lawfull PCs (acting much as i would) reply to a surrender with something like "if you surrender you shall be fairly judged but you shall be judged and punished accordingly. you shall receive no more mercy than you are found to deserve, your punishment may include death. these are the terms i will accept, if you wish to surrender." and i would look into the situation as much as possable before judgement
Morka 05-11-05, 08:13 AM	A Lawful Good Cleric has an evil creature surrender on her. She believes from previous experience that if she let the creature live it would not only continue to do evil but most likely harm the party in the near future. She believes death is the only just sentence for an unredeming villian. Others claim she (& they) she tie the evil creature up and leave him there but one member says the creature would surely die of starvation. Another pipes up stating that they should take the creature to the closest authorities to put them on trial but in the adventure time is of the essence and this would mean the death of countless innocents. The cleric hands the creature a weapon and demands it defends itself but it refuses saying it would die. What is the appropriate thing to do in this situation for a Lawful Good Cleric and a Good Aligned party??? Delvesdeep:b: This so reminds me Lord of the Rings, when Frodon refuse to kill Gollum... He knows the creature is evil and have killed numerous innocents, but he is sure Gollum could help him. Even after he betrayed them, he doesn't kill him (but if memory serve, at this time, it's more because he misses the opportunity to kill him). And in the end... Frodon is unable to throw the One Ring in the lava pit, because His power is too strong. But Gollum attack him, and in the battle, he steal him the Ring and fall in the pit.
Nom 05-11-05, 09:15 AM	This so reminds me Lord of the Rings, when Frodon refuse to kill Gollum...Perhaps. But then Frodo is not a divine agent of a Lawful Good deity, who "fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation" (PH pg 105). Many people forget the Lawful part of Lawful Good. Law is all about Justice, and "deserving". A LG character hates to see the undeserving suffer. The deserving may be a completely different matter. Justice is a necessary component of a LG mindset; mercy is not. In truth, this sort of a quandry should pose far more of a question for a NG or CG character. For a strongly LG character (especially a paladin or cleric with divine authority or a character with civil authority), the question is simple: do they deserve death for their crimes? If yes, execute them in accordance with appropriate practices, and move on. In contrast, mercy is a more Chaotic trait, since it suggests that there are more important things than simple justice.
Draco Strang 05-11-05, 10:37 AM	Yea, I've gotta align myself with Flushmaster and SnowbearK on this one. If the entire party (who's good aligned) and the LG cleric have seen what the evil creature did, and don't have the means to transport it back to some sort of justice system for trial, then it's time for them to be judge, jury, and executioner. Think of it as a citizen's arrest, if it helps. This course of action assumes that imprisoning or transporting the evil creature is out of the question. Both of those would be preferable to just killing the thing.
Lord Ian Stark 05-11-05, 10:43 AM	Just asking, but what kind of creature is it?
Calico Jack Drake 05-11-05, 12:33 PM	I would have to disagree on this on. Even though the party has "more important" things to do than baby-sit the evil prisoner, once it asks for mercy it's done. To maintain a lawful good alignment the cleric/party would have to take the creature into custody until they could get it to the proper authorities, even knowing that it can and probably will betray them later. It is possible that, having spared the creature's life, it will see the error of its ways and find redemption. Failure to follow this course of action would result in an alignment shift, probably towards lawful nuetral (also sometimes known as judge) for the cleric and more toward whatever neutral for the rest of the party, in which case they can drop summary justice on the creature and not bat an eye. There is nothing good about executing a helpless creature begging for mercy and giving it a weapon and telling it to defend itself does not change that. Tie it up and take it with you. It's about all you can do and properly RP the alignment. Note, however, that an alignment shift here may not be as big a deal as if you had to worry about a paladin. If the cleric's diety lists LN as an alignment then he wouldn't lose any of his abilities or have to worry about honking off his diety. Hope this helps -CJ
Gedrin 05-11-05, 01:44 PM	CJ, the situation isn't one of a helpless prisoner begging for mercy. It is a situation of a dangerous prisoner that is unrepentent of his crimes. If he were helpless (containable) or were begging for mercy (legitimately repenting), I'd be on your side. However, it doesn't seem that this is the situation.
Head_PC 1 05-11-05, 01:52 PM	AN interesting dilemma. This situation reminds me of the event in "Saving Private Ryan" There the soldiers capture a enemy soldier. He is probably not evil at all, seemingly just a human fighting on the other side of the war. They can't take him prisoner because they're behind enemy lines, and they can't bring him with them because of supplies and stealth. In the movie they let him go and tell to surrender to the nearest allied forces he can find, but instead he joins up with his own forces and comes back to kill several of them later on. Despite that I'd say the good thing was to let him go. In the case of a truly evil creature, things become different. You say that paladins cannot judge, and I say you're wrong. Paladins in D&D are generally far better judges than the normal authorities, because of his ability to detect evil and righteousness of heart. I'd give the villain a quick and painless death, which is more than he deservers. Then a burial and a prayer for his soul. Bottom line, if a secular D&D court can sentence a criminal to death, then so should a paladin of a good deity be able to. The cleric could perform an Augury perhaps, but those are not 100% accurate. Better to just pray to their gods for guidance and if there is no answer or feeling then do what they think is right. In Saving Private Ryan, they are not fighting a monster, they are fighting other humans, for a different cause than simply alignment. This is not even related. If the thing is evil, and wont redeem, kill it. How hard is that? Im sure any PC would have slaughtered it without hesitation had it not surrendured, upon which they then feel the need to act all lawful. It didnt surrendur to redeem, it surrendered because it knew it wasnt going to win... that doesnt give it any more privileges than the next foe.
Delvesdeep 05-11-05, 07:01 PM	Just asking, but what kind of creature is it? It was a Skulk. Thankyou for all your advice and banter. The opinions presented here will work nicely and stop the hour long debate that occured last time. A simple statement to the creature along the lines of 'realize that by surrendering you are placing your life and soul is my hands to be judged. Your past crimes and unrepenting nature leaves me with little choice but to sentence you to death. Is your choice to die fighting or by the quick sword of justice?' People have written many differing versions of this which I can also throw at the cleric to use in future situations that mimic the one above. One further question though - What is the creature in question can not be communicated with? In your opinion does it matter? Delvesdeep:b:
Jeremiah DeathFist 05-11-05, 07:24 PM	The guy is a Lawful Cleric so he should beleive that justice must be served and would kill it.
Calico Jack Drake 05-11-05, 07:53 PM	Well, the game is yours to do with as you see fit. But, if you look at the essay in the Book of Exalted Deeds about what is good, it has this exact situation. (for those who have seen my other posts, yes, I know I keep going back here but it is relevant). According to the BoED, it does not matter if you know the monster is going to betray you. It's black and white (the name of the thread). If the creature surrenders and begs mercy, not granting it is not a good aligned act. To remain good and follow a good aligned ethos you must grat the creature mercy and not kill it. In fact, if you turn around and kill the creature you are killing a defenseless, creature unprovoked. That is an evil act. If I were DM'ing the group, that would definitely be cause for a minor diety slap on the wrist at a minimum and possibly an alignment shift if it were a blatant or consistent thing. This is the same type of discussion (? and I use the term loosely) going on in the "Another questionable paladin act" thread on this same board. The only difference here is we're talking about a cleric that does not lose abilities due to an alignment shift instead of a paladin that would. Note that my response assumes that you are following a good and evil are black and white and not relative approach. If your DM wants to see good and evil as relative, that's his perrogative but it is going to make things very difficult for both players and DM later down the road when another such problem comes up.
Calico Jack Drake 05-11-05, 07:55 PM	Posts 18 and 19 in this thread would definitely force an alignment shift to LN. LN is the alignment of judgement and judging. Again, just my opinion. CJ
Nom 05-11-05, 10:18 PM	One further question though - What is the creature in question can not be communicated with? In your opinion does it matter?If there was doubt as to whether the creature deserved a particular punishment, it probably would matter. If there wasn't doubt, it wouldn't.
Delvesdeep 05-11-05, 10:28 PM	To remain good and follow a good aligned ethos you must grat the creature mercy and not kill it. In fact, if you turn around and kill the creature you are killing a defenseless, creature unprovoked. That is an evil act. This was the delemia that we as a group and I as a DM struggled with. There seems to be no clear path here. So my understanding of your stance and your interpretation of the BoED is that killing a creature who has surrendered no matter what its previous crimes, motivations, plans etc is an evil act. The judgement is made purely on that one situation rather than the past or future. Am I correct in this assumption? If this is indeed true then releasing the evil creature or taking it to the proper authorities is the only viable option for a Lawful good character. I think creatures surrendering will be a rare occurance from this point on. It makes things to complicated. Fight or flight seems the most simple. If a creature was given a chance to redeem itself and rufused, or it spat in the face of good (would not kiss a holy symbol or pleed for forgiveness) would this indicate the terms of surrender were broken and therefore the creature must be sent to 'hell or heaven' for judgement? Very confusing to say the least. Delvesdeep:b:
Thomar_of_Uointer 05-11-05, 11:46 PM	The Good act is to leave it alive. The Lawful act is to kill it. You can't have it both ways, but are justified either way.
Calico Jack Drake 05-12-05, 12:50 AM	This was the delemia that we as a group and I as a DM struggled with. There seems to be no clear path here. So my understanding of your stance and your interpretation of the BoED is that killing a creature who has surrendered no matter what its previous crimes, motivations, plans etc is an evil act. The judgement is made purely on that one situation rather than the past or future. Am I correct in this assumption? Yes, no matter how much it pains them to do so. If this is indeed true then releasing the evil creature or taking it to the proper authorities is the only viable option for a Lawful good character. I think creatures surrendering will be a rare occurance from this point on. It makes things to complicated. Fight or flight seems the most simple. I would agree with you here. Especially from creatures that really want nothing more than to kill the party and chew on their bones. When part of a group sees the rest go down in a fight, they can run away and regroup and come back as recurring villians or another encounter later on. In fact, I have used a situation where one small group is sent in while a larger group waited and watched for weaknesses; they were waiting to see what the spellcasters could do and how fast the pawns got chopped up. If they didn't think they could handle the party they retreated to either come back better prepared or left to find weaker prey. The only time I would use the "mercy" ploy is if the creature can be redeemed, which can make for an interesting story arc or the extremely rare instance where I was going to use it as a tool because the party was getting complacent. If a creature was given a chance to redeem itself and rufused, or it spat in the face of good (would not kiss a holy symbol or pleed for forgiveness) would this indicate the terms of surrender were broken and therefore the creature must be sent to 'hell or heaven' for judgement? I know this isn't answering your questiondirectly, but... My suggestion here is do not, under any circumstance, bring an afterlife of any kind into your game. To keep the game black and white, ethical decision must be yes or no, true or false, good or evil. Adding and afterlife adds a third option that will bring you nothing but grief. Good protects life, evil takes it. Any more than that and you need to develop an entire philosophy for your game world about what is a soul, what happens to it, is it worht more than the physical body, etc. Then you have to make sure all of you players understand everything about your new religion that ther characters would have known from birth. I don't know about you, but I don't have the time nor inclination to take on a project that vast. Very confusing to say the least. Delvesdeep:b: Oh, yes... agreed... this is one of those discussions that probably shouldn't plague a fantasy game but does. It is both confusing and very difficult to adjudicate. I do not envy you your position. According to the BoED, though, yeah you have to keep it alive if there is even the remotest possiblity that it could be redeemed. A worse situation can occur when you have an entire party of good aligned characters and the troll that is 3 HP from death begs mercy. As players, you know the ony reason it's doing that is to let its regenerative abilites take over and heal. Afterwards, you're fairly ceratin it's going to try to kill you. It sucks, but as a good aligned character you pretty much have to take its plea for mercy at face value. As was said (quite well) above, you can be Lawful and kill it for what it has done or you can be good and accept it's surrender. The only way to be both is to accept its surrender and hope it really takes it to heart long enough for the party to foist the creature off on someone else. From a role playing standpoint, the creature realizes that it can't beat the party... after all it came within inches of losing its life. So, for now, it travels along quietly as the party's prisoner knowing that whoever they turn him over to will be much easier to get away from. This makes things much easier on everyone and gives you a reason for the creature not to attack the party in the middle of the night, which will just make the players go "See, I knew we should have killed him back there". The players get to keep their alignments in tact and maybe get a small xp bonus for doing something dangerous but keeping in character and everything stays black and white in the game world. Good is good and accepts surrender. Evil is evil and bides its time waiting for the opportunity to escape, just not under the watchful eyes of a group that could easily kill it. Hope this helps -CJ
Nom 05-12-05, 09:23 AM	Also note that the BoED is an optional supplement that deals with being exalted, which is a particular take on what it means to be supernaturally Good. Even with the BoED in play, it is not the be-all and end-all of Good behaviour, just of exalted Good behaviour. Each group needs to decide for itself how morality will be expressed in-game. What does it mean to be Good? Evil? Lawful (ordered)? Chaotic (unfettered)? Who sets these standards? Who (if anyone) enforces them? What difference does it make anyway? It's a particularly worthwhile exercise to consider the LG ("Crusader") and CG ("Rebel") iconics described on PH pg 105. Alhandra, the LG iconic, is "a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation". Soveliss, the CG iconic, is "a ranger who waylays the evil baron's tax collectors". How do your views on LG and CG mesh with these distinctive characteristics? How would a LG character in your world view Alhandra, or Soveliss? What about a CG character in your world? It's rarely profitable to try to make simple rules of the form "in situation X, a Good character must Y". Rather, ask yourself how various individuals in your game world would view the action, and why.
Andrew_980 05-13-05, 09:23 AM	just remember before you quote it that the BoED is the manuel of how to turn your PC into a total tool in exchange for exalted powers. it doesn't know the differance between good and sainthood and make the phrase "evil will always win because good is dumb" come true at every turn.
Calico Jack Drake 05-13-05, 09:33 AM	just remember before you quote it that the BoED is the manuel of how to turn your PC into a total tool in exchange for exalted powers. it doesn't know the differance between good and sainthood and make the phrase "evil will always win because good is dumb" come true at every turn. You seem to be under ths misconception (also appearing from your sig lines in the paladin post elseswhere in this board). A good part of the book is about being exalted, I grant you. But the first section about the nature of good applies to all good characters. The difference is that a LG cleric tries to live up to what is presented there as best he can. He does not knowing or willingly violate those concepts if he can at all help it. If he fails, there are no real repricussions unless he does it in a blatant or disgusting manner. An Exalted LG cleric has to live up to those concepts or he loses any and all Exalted abilities. That's the primary difference. The primary reason I tend to look at it and use it to support an arguement is that it is much more detailed and clearly defined than the PHB. That's what is needed in a situation like this where a question arises without a good reference in a core book. -CJ
Mirikon 05-13-05, 10:11 AM	I agree with those who said kill it. Do it quick, do it clean, but kill it. Simple decapitation would work. LG does not mean stupid. Just like CE does not mean stupid. For those who ask what makes this guy judge jury and executioner, that is a high level Cleric or Paladin's JOB. They carry out the divine will of their patrons, slaying the wicked, or redeeming them if it is convienient or has a good likelyhood of success.
Fist Like Thunder 05-13-05, 04:21 PM	I think the best example comes not from Saving Private Ryan, But from the film U571. The German Captain is pulled from the water, and the Americans secure him for delivery to the shore authorities. The German tries to escape, killing one man in the process, and is subdued and secured even better. He then tries to send a message to the enemy destroyer, and is killed. Personally I think the Americans would have been justified to kill him after the first escape attempt. There is a reason why "Shot while Escaping" is an accepted reason. But to look at it from a "Good" standpoint, the Americans didn't kill him until he proved a direct threat to their lives and their mission. They were trying really hard to give the guy a chance. Perhaps the captured creature deserves, or at least should be offered, a similar chance for redemtion or destruction. "We'll take you with us, but if you mess up and endanger our lives, you're done for." This of course presumes an intelligent foe. Only something with intelligence can make a choice about redemption. Unintelligent foes probably wouldn't surrender.
Bane 05-13-05, 04:48 PM	Lawful Good is not obligated to take any surrender at face value. Lawful Good is obligated to consider the circumstances surrounding the surrender. Example: I'm a lich. A Lawful Good party comes to stop me from nuking nearby villages and turning the inhabitants into an Undead army. The Lawful Good cleric casts Disruption on his heavy mace. As a lich, I know a thing or two about spells, and I realize that Disruption doesn't last very long. I surrender, and offer to lead the party to my phylactery. They follow me, and I lead them through secret passages for a few minutes, and Disruption wears off. I stop in a large room, set off a trap, and the entire room floods with negative energy. I proceed to slaughter the party, and animate the corpses for addition to the 'Gullible Adventurers' unit of my army. Did the Lawful Good party do the right thing?
Gedrin 05-13-05, 05:00 PM	I would argue that surrender implies submission to the authority of your captors, at least in regard to your being secured. If the intent is to continue to harry them, you're a continuing and active threat. If the person in question still has evil intent, and still has the means to commit evil, and merely is waiting for the chance to do it...do we really have to wait for the actual evil to be done? Mind you, I assume a level of certainty (eye witnesses to the evil acts and confirmation of the continued intent to do grave evil) that is not normally available in the real world. He's a dangerous person with the abiltiy to kill. He says he's going to kill you/others. You believe he's both willing and capable of killing you/others, and that he actually intends to do so at the earliest opportunity. You have serious doubts about your ability to prevent him from killing yourself/others without executing him now. Now, if the guy is standing in front of you with a sword, it's simple. Of course, the situation is much more dangerous for you and for others, since the guy is more active at the moment. Same set of ideas, but the guy just hasn't gotten free yet, we have a conflict with it. What if he's struggling against his bonds and you're certain he'll get free? What if he's free of his bonds but not yet actually trying to kill someone? What if he's running toward you and you think he's going to kill you, but he hasn't actually swung at you? What if he's not yet struck a blow, but is swinging furiously? Until the point where he's struck a blow, he hasn't hurt anyone, has he? How long do you really wait until you execute the known murderer that you are certain poses a continuing threat? Would it make any difference if the PC's were knights of the land, duly apointed with the power to deliver justice? Sure, but unfortunately our situation places the PC's outside the reach of any traditional law enforcement power, and they cary none themselves. In the wilderness, without a third party, either the PC's exercise justice themselves, as best and honorably as they can, or there really isn't any justice in the wilderness. If you just don't think it's ever acceptable to kill a criminal, fine, that's a dead end. But if it is ever acceptable, you're free to decide if you think it is more apropriate for the PC's to be the last resort for justice in the situation, or if there is no consequence for the criminal's actions, because that is what is being suggested by some. It would be better to let the criminal go, let the murderer wander loose, than to have the PC's, as a last resort, apply the penalty that would be due in civilization.
Karelzarath 05-13-05, 06:01 PM	The path of good is the hardest path to walk. Killing a prisoner because it's not convenient to take him to the authorities is neither good nor lawful. The opening chapter of the BoED delineates this quite clearly, and does so for all good creatures, not just ones seeking exalted status. To quote a passage from the Mercy section:Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds. As noted in the section called "Redeeming Evil", there are exceptions.Of course, good creatures recognize that some creatures are utterly beyond redemption. Most creatures described in the Monster Manual as "always evil" are either completely irredeemable or so intimately tied to evil that they are almost entirely hopeless. Certainly demons and devils are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naive fool would try to convert them. Good characters do not choose their path because it is easy. They choose it because it is right. When the characters lose sight of that ideal (as some here have), they slip from grace and cease to be good. Killing the prisoner should slip them closer to evil and slightly closer to chaos. Maybe not enough to consist of an alignment shift for this one incident, but certainly enough to dock a paladin his abilities. If the party is constantly being hosed by villains doing the "fake surrender" bit, they need to kill them faster in the future. Or smack the DM upside the head.
Gedrin 05-14-05, 09:10 PM	I hardly think "kill them before they have the chance to surrender" qualifies under the "Mercy Clause". It makes as much sense as giving them weapons to justify killing them, and it's probably what the LE guy in the LG army is thinking. I'm fine if you want to say no crime is worthy of execution. That's a long dead end debate and we just agree to disagree. But if some crimes are worthy of execution, and there's no state sponsored executioner around, and there's no way to get to one without sacrificing innocent lives... You can either serve the inevidable consequence justice demands, or not.
Radijs 05-14-05, 10:19 PM	For a truly good cleric the option of execution should truly only be a last resort. The demand for the victim to defend himself just adds cruelty to the scenario, another act of evil. If I was playing the good cleric I would turn the individual over to a temple of my preferred deity so that the priests there can try and redeem him/her. If they fail there I will make sure that they are left with a full account of what the evildoer did so they will sentence and execute him/her if the villain is beyond redemption. If its unlikely that turning him over will lead to either redemption or death (either one will do really) I would try to redeem the person myself though I doubt that would work. More likely would be that I'd hang around to see what happens and then in the end take matters into my own hands. Executing prisoners like that comes under the neutral category IMO and ordering them to defend themselves is unessecary cruel and therefore evil.
Gedrin 05-15-05, 01:25 AM	I would agree that forcing them to enter some sort of duel to the death is probably cruelty. I'd put this sort of thinking along with "tie him to a tree and leave". Aside from the fact that if you could secure him well enough to tie him to a tree with confidence, you could also tie him up and drag him along...you're banking on either A: he escapes, in which case justice is not served or B: he dies a painful death at the hands of starvation/desication, the elements, or animals. In the situation described, there isn't an authority to which we can turn the prisoner over. If we could, without placing our protectorate in grave danger, the answer is obviously to do so. However, in the situation described, we can't, and the options are very narrow. Personally, I think that the "you can never execute a prisoner no matter what" argument is flawed for anyone who believes that there are crimes which warrant execution (again, those against the death penalty hold it is never acceptable and we come to a dead end). I mean, if the state can execute the criminal, and he'd certianly be a prisoner at that time... In the absense of the state (or whatever third party to which judgement is assigned) is the crime commited no longer worthy of that punishment? If execution is an acceptable punishment for some crimes, then execution is an acceptable punishment of those crimes. The remaining matter is only one of how to pursue the execution to serve the interests of justice, and more particular to our situation, how to pursue justice when the only parties involved are those who were wronged, and those who committed the crime. /Imp A note regarding raising the dead. I would argue that in D&D, the level of certainty required for execution is much lower. If mistakes are later discovered, the punishment can be largely undone. One might argue, if they were feeling particularly impish, that in a wilderness situation, one could kill a criminal in a manner that caused little/no suffering, and plan to later raise the criminal if it were needed as judged by a good and just court. The courts could even have the defendant present postuhumously, via speak with dead. Essentially, it's not that final even if you made an error. Though it would certainly be expensive as a habit. Particularly if you erred and were required to compensate the unjustly executed (including the +1 Con item he needs). /Imp
High Octane 05-15-05, 12:35 PM	Good PCs have to show mercy when there is even the slightest chance of redemption. Of course, there are creatures that are beyond redemption, and there is no mercy for them. Evil outsiders for example, are beyond reproach. Of course, planetouched are not.