Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kantor Brightblade 06-14-04, 03:26 AM	I play a Half Elven Ranger. He is a good man. Former achoholic, died once. Has a HUGE grudge against the gods of my DMs world and can sometimes be a really ****** off guy. His girlfriend, the NPC of the party, is a lifelong guild thief who happens to have several levels of assassin. She's just figuring this out and it's causing quite the havoc to the foes we fight. Anyway, these two have long histories of being hunted by this group, that group and everyone in between. Recently, they came across some "slavers" in a prostitution ring. My Ranger and the NPC were captured and tortured. They eventually broke free and killed all the 'slavers'....now this is where it gets fun. Not only were there about 15 slavers....who are all dead now. But there were nearly 30 patrons and "employees" in the attached "House of Ill Repute".........they are also all dead. So tell me O Wise Boarders........can I continue to play my character as a goodly man who has been spited and sought out justice on those who wronged him?......OR...should I play him as a "fallen" type and live the life of a fugitive just because he killed some really dirty people?
was_fired 06-14-04, 03:44 AM	It's your character play him how you will.
bitnine 06-14-04, 03:55 AM	He's a character first and an alignment second (if at that). Concern yourself with the actions that the character would take, and roleplay him accordingly. Let the DM worry about the vagueries of what line goes on that section of the character sheet. Though if he winds up detecting as something to certain spells, the character might certainly be interested in that and items like a ring of mind shielding.
shift244 06-14-04, 05:07 AM	interesting character. i would like to see him and his girl friend continue on the path of the chaotic good type, which they seem to be from what you have posted, albiet the assasin levels. but he's your character as the previous posters have noted. do as you will, or as you think he will..
Thorak 06-14-04, 06:58 AM	He's a retributive, unforgiving type. But that's something relatively independent of alignment. Don't think of the alignments too narrowly, you can have a LG character who's mean, vindictive, judgemental, narrow-minded, and downright cold to most people. But rolls his eyes and, complaining loudly, gives the poor as much money as he can afford while bitingly pointing out that they're a drain on society and should get a real job, and will support his friends in anything, even if he's occasionally bitter about it. Good does not equal Nice.
Astanphaeus 06-14-04, 11:34 AM	Originally posted by Thorak Good does not equal Nice. I'll echo this in particular, but also much of everything else that's been stated. Alignment isn't the end-all-be-all, and there's a lot of wiggle room in any given alignment. What your character did was brutal and unforgiving... perhaps even nasty... but did his underlying morality change? It doesn't seem so. I have a CG character that'd be in 100% agreement with your character's actions. I've had others that'd consider them horrible. What ultimately matters is the attitude and motivaiton behind them. Did your character go on a killing spree, because he was consumed with bloodlust and enjoyed it? Or did he do it because he was sickened by the whole affair? Sounds to me like it was the latter... in which case, I'd still call him Good... just a very harsh flavour of it. ~ A.
ninjarabbit 06-14-04, 12:21 PM	I can see this guy evolving into a Punisher-like character, of course I'm stating the obvious. Personally true neutral sounds right for this guy.
Thorak 06-14-04, 02:35 PM	Originally posted by ninjarabbit I can see this guy evolving into a Punisher-like character, of course I'm stating the obvious. Personally true neutral sounds right for this guy. Except the Punisher, from what I recall of the comic, is constantly struggling to keep his vigilante tactics from killing innocents. Because he has a vague notion that that wouldn't be right, but not because he truly cares about the people; his main drive is vengeance. Thus, he's neutral or perhaps even evil. And, interestingly, Batman fits this archetype as well, and in the later years is much more neutral to evil than good. He's just aiming his bloodthirst and need for vengeance at the people society has deemed are 'bad'; if his parents had been killed by cops all that time ago in a shootout, it's entirely possible Batman would have evolved to have a burning need to take out his vengeance on law enforcement agents every chance he got. The drive is vengeance, more than any moral reason. The PC, though, while engaging in vengeance, only really extended it to those involved, even those indirectly. Punisher and Batman extended it to a crusade against those they'd decided were 'wrong', and they abandoned most if not all of the usual signposts of 'good' in their pursuit of vengeance. I don't think that's true, necessarily, of this PC. It may be, but it'll take a lot more than a single bloodbath to determine that.
MrkGrismer 06-14-04, 03:39 PM	Originally posted by Kantor Brightblade Not only were there about 15 slavers....who are all dead now. But there were nearly 30 patrons and "employees" in the attached "House of Ill Repute".........they are also all dead. You can continue playing the character as good, but killing 30 people for no reason more then they being in the house of ill-repute (and even worse, if those "employees" were slaves, which seems like what you are saying here) then he's going to light up when people cast detect evil. Perhaps after he does many good deeds he may redeem himself, but honestly couldn't he have freed the "employees"? Maybe given them a gp or two each so they could make their way in the world? THAT would have been a good deed. As for the patrons. That depends on whether it was common knowledge that these were slaves or not. Buying something from somebody is no more evil then if they gave it to you without charge.
ninjarabbit 06-14-04, 03:49 PM	The Punisher's personality really depended on who was the writer at the time, so it's hard to really debate his personality, we can only make a few braod generalizations. With Batman, regardless who was the writer, never killed and never used guns (with a few exceptions) and Batman usually had a working relationship with law enforcement and the JLA, basically making Batman a legit hero as opposed to the Punisher.
Thorak 06-14-04, 04:04 PM	Originally posted by ninjarabbit With Batman, regardless who was the writer, never killed and never used guns (with a few exceptions) and Batman usually had a working relationship with law enforcement and the JLA, basically making Batman a legit hero as opposed to the Punisher. Not even remotely true later on though. The creator's acknowledged that Batman and Bruce Wayne were meant to be different personalities in the same person, able to switch at will. Batman being the more-and-more psychotic one, who eventually subsumes the Bruce personality. Check out the most recent cartoon, Batman 2050 or whatever it is; the 80-ish Bruce Wayne, who's retired in favour of a new, younger Batman, sits at his control desk in the batcave and, in the one episode I caught, was screaming at the new Batman to kill the badguy before the cops arrived. While the new Batman is screaming back that he can't do that. Batman, as he was originally designed (not the later movies or some of the kiddyized cartoons), is a borderline lunatic, who eventually goes off the deep end into psychosis. He's not a 'good' guy. He cooperates with law enforcement only because the law knows they can't stop him, and he's beating up bad guys anyway. Like I said; if the cops had been the ones to kill his parents, he'd have become a cop-killing psychopath.
Thermanshs 06-14-04, 04:48 PM	kanton brightblade..... striving to punish your slavers has nothing to do with evil.Justice can be brought by any good creature. BUT,if you've gone so mad as to kill their families to make their suffering worse,burn their homes bla...bla then your alignment starts to stench..... suming up fighting fire with fire doesn't change your alignment(unless you're playing a fanatic pacifist which you don't...) but fighting fire with meteor swarm brings you one step closer to evil.
Edward 06-14-04, 07:03 PM	You alone define your characters personality you chose how you will play him. If I were your gm I would expect you to play your character with an organically evolving personality however you will probably not be detected as good anymore. This dose not mean you should not play your character as good. Alignment is jugged based on actions and intentions of the moderately recent past. Just because you slid doesn’t mean your character doesn’t still think of himself as a good man and strives to follow that path. Depending on exact circumstances it may not take much to det as good again. Edward
danielinthewolvesden 06-14-04, 07:24 PM	Originally posted by MrkGrismer You can continue playing the character as good, but killing 30 people for no reason more then they being in the house of ill-repute (and even worse, if those "employees" were slaves, which seems like what you are saying here) then he's going to light up when people cast detect evil. Perhaps after he does many good deeds he may redeem himself, but honestly couldn't he have freed the "employees"? Maybe given them a gp or two each so they could make their way in the world? THAT would have been a good deed. As for the patrons. That depends on whether it was common knowledge that these were slaves or not. Buying something from somebody is no more evil then if they gave it to you without charge. Right, your PC should now be Evil- altho he might strive to return to Good.
Astanphaeus 06-14-04, 07:45 PM	I didn't get the impression that the "employees" and patrons were in any way innocent. Looked to me like they were all knowlingly condoning the activities of the slavers. If they were, in fact, in the dark or slaves or whatever, then yeah... that should darken up the character quite a bit. ~ A.
MrkGrismer 06-14-04, 08:10 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus I didn't get the impression that the "employees" and patrons were in any way innocent. Looked to me like they were all knowlingly condoning the activities of the slavers. If they were, in fact, in the dark or slaves or whatever, then yeah... that should darken up the character quite a bit. ~ A. I didn't think so on first read either, but with the quotes around "employees" and the fact that he said the attached house of ill-repute it is a little fuzzy. He also said "Not only were there about 15 slavers....who are all dead now. But there were nearly 30 patrons and 'employees' in the attached 'House of Ill Repute'.........they are also all dead." Which means the 'employees' were not the slavers, so I would assume they were likely the slaves. Which would be E.V.I.L.
Airsucker 06-14-04, 09:34 PM	Well, there's multiple ways to go about this. It could be a step down the axis and you'd be neutral. You could seek penitance to remain good. If I might make a suggestion, you could take this through the path of getting closer to your god by seeking repentance, then using some of the material on gods in the game, you could seek to expand your PCs faith, but ramain on your career path. I think there might be some useful material for that in the recent Complete Divine, but I havent' seen much of it yet, as our store has too recently had inventory to let us check out books. If Complete Warrior (or whatever it was titled) is any indication it is a more comprehensive look at its topic. At any rate, this is fuel for RP opportunities. Follow where it leads. ;)
Archangel 06-15-04, 06:49 AM	If those employees were slaves then not only will the owners come after you but I would expect a Paladin or some Harper bounty hunter or two!
Kantor Brightblade 06-15-04, 06:10 PM	I suppose I should jump in and clarify a bit. I am surprised at the amounts of responses I forgot I should respond as well. So here goes....The Slavers caught and tortured myself...the Ranger.....and my lover...the Rogue. We were basically going to be forced prostitutes. Until we escaped. We killed those that captured us and anyone else that looked and acted like them. 15 Slaver in all. There was a building attatched to the place we were taken, where the 30 or so other people were. The Courtiers and Patrons were doing their business. We killed them all, not distinguishing between the Slavers we just killed and who may or may not be innocent. Kyrian..my character...felt betrayed by those that captured him and sought retribution. It's just now, a few weeks afterward he's expressing guilt for his actions. It's sort of an identity crisis. I liked the references to Batman.....that actually works well with me at the moment. He's not borderline psychotic, but he's struggling with the actions of those he was captured by and the actions he took against them. He finds them to be equal......so he thinks that he is just like them. Or at least he can be just like them. By the way, Kyrian is FAR from a religious sort. In fact, in my DMS world he's pretty much ****** off every god there is. In one instance a god came down and "talked" to him because he was screaming 'i HATE YOU' to the heavens. Hope this clarifies a bit.
MrkGrismer 06-15-04, 07:00 PM	Originally posted by Kantor Brightblade There was a building attatched to the place we were taken, where the 30 or so other people were. The Courtiers and Patrons were doing their business. We killed them all, not distinguishing between the Slavers we just killed and who may or may not be innocent. Casts detect evil AH! MY EYES! I'M BLINDED! Yup, that would be evil... yup. Welcome do the dark side, young Skywalker.
Edward 06-15-04, 08:06 PM	You are so evil. But that dose not mean you have to act it. If you character feels genuine remorse he may act closer to good than he did when you had good written on your character sheet. And thus return to a good alignment in a modest amount of time (probably with a time spent neutral). Or you could embrace that uncaring vindictiveness and kill all those that cross you and those that associate with those that do you serious harm an be rightly dammed to the deepest depth of hell for all time when your mortal existence is ended by a finely honed holy avenger (wielded by a finely honed paladin of virtue). Edward
Thorak 06-15-04, 10:22 PM	Originally posted by Edward You are so evil. But that dose not mean you have to act it. If you character feels genuine remorse he may act closer to good than he did when you had good written on your character sheet. And thus return to a good alignment in a modest amount of time (probably with a time spent neutral). Or you could embrace that uncaring vindictiveness and kill all those that cross you and those that associate with those that do you serious harm an be rightly dammed to the deepest depth of hell for all time when your mortal existence is ended by a finely honed holy avenger (wielded by a finely honed paladin of virtue). Edward A single act of violence, especially one that was provoked, isn't enough to shift alignment. If he's disturbed by his actions, he could very well still be a Good character, despite the Evil tendencies in that bloodbath. Alignment's not a straightjacket; characters can act contrary to their alignment from time to time without it changing. Just be sure to RP the moral issues the character has as a result. For instance; I've got a last-son-of-a-noble-house-fallen-into-disrepute Paladin running right now. Nobody in the party knows he's a noble, though some people suspect due to his nice sword and his general uselessness at anything involving real work. I'm deliberately treading the line with him; in his early to late teens, he was the head of his House (and still is), but wasn't taught to be responsible and his servants and family kept the House's financial troubles from him. Add in his then-frivolous attitude, and he frittered away the remaining family fortune, losing everything of value besides the family home (most of the furnishings, however, are gone, as are all decorative bits and surrounding lands). As a result, he's gloomy, morose, and feels a burning need to prove himself. He's self-effacing, because he thinks he's morally worse than even a peasant, but he still holds that inherent arrogance of nobility that means he sees peasants as morally inferior to begin with. He also sees his sword-arm, and thus violence, as his only route to honour and glory. He's generous to the downtrodden, to his own neglect, but absolutely pitiless to those who he's deemed to be Wrong. He's an absolute blast to play. I've been toying with having him Fall, since I plan to take him into Kensai at level 6 anyway and took Paladin more for the RP and class skills than the actual Paladin abilities, but I'll only do so if there's a good reason. There's already a few NPCs in the village we've been trying to save he's gotten close enough to that he's likely to go on a bloody avenging rampage if they get hurt or killed. Thus far, he's been an absolute terror on the orcs and other nasties we've been fighting, hewing limbs from bodies and cutting them in twain left and right (lots of critical hits, and lots of overkill). Of course, he's also gotten brained a couple times but good by ogres, but he's been lucky enough to pull through and arrogant enough to see this as more examples of his own righteousness. For some reason, the humble arrogance is really turning my crank these days. It seems so incompatible on the surface, but it works together really, really well if you've set the character up right.
MrkGrismer 06-15-04, 11:17 PM	Originally posted by Thorak A single act of violence, especially one that was provoked, isn't enough to shift alignment. If he's disturbed by his actions, he could very well still be a Good character, despite the Evil tendencies in that bloodbath. Alignment's not a straightjacket; characters can act contrary to their alignment from time to time without it changing. Just be sure to RP the moral issues the character has as a result. A single act yes. Thirty. Thirty innocent people, probably half of which were already abused slaves. Slaughtered in a bloodlust without a concern for their innocence. That darkens a soul. Yes the character is redeemable, so long as he feels remorse does penance and perhaps seeks to right the wrong. Perhaps dedicated himself to ending slavery throughout the world. (or somesuch) Great Roleplaying opportunity however.
Edward 06-16-04, 12:34 AM	I did consider that a signal act (and a singe rampage is a single act) is rarely engulf to go from good to evil. I also considered it took weeks for him to regret it. I believe this act would be enough to loose good immediately. When he woke up the next morning and didn’t immediately feal remorse he lost his last chance at remaining good and probably went to evil. He can still win it back but it needs to be won back in my book. I do agree alignment isn’t a straightjacket. The fact that he is now listed as evil or neutral with evil tendencies doesn’t mean he has to act that way. The only penalty for having your alignment change is class abilities and how some spells affect you. Edward
Thorak 06-16-04, 01:14 AM	Originally posted by MrkGrismer A single act yes. Thirty. Thirty innocent people, probably half of which were already abused slaves. Slaughtered in a bloodlust without a concern for their innocence. That darkens a soul. Yes the character is redeemable, so long as he feels remorse does penance and perhaps seeks to right the wrong. Perhaps dedicated himself to ending slavery throughout the world. (or somesuch) Great Roleplaying opportunity however. Killing the thirty was a single act. If it had been thirty separate killings, it would have been thirty separate acts. As it stands, this was one single bloodbath. The number of victims is morally irrelevant, what matters is how the character feels about those killings. And by 'morally irrelevant', I mean a killing spree is 'bad'. It doesn't get 'worse' by adding a few more or 'better' by killing a few less. It's just bad, period. The number is irrelevant.
Archangel 06-16-04, 05:44 AM	So what you are saying that a person that pulls a trigger in an alley while robbing somebody is as bad as a person who releases poison gas into a room full of people! Well I think not. For killing 30 people his alignment goes straigth to evil numbers wise! Him waking another morning and going as nothing has happened is him roleplaying and evil guy. Him regreting his actions a few week later is him roleplaying a change to neutral. And to change to good he will need to make it right! Either by submiting himself to justice or by doing something heroicly good to atone for his deeds!
Thorak 06-16-04, 07:05 AM	Originally posted by Archangel So what you are saying that a person that pulls a trigger in an alley while robbing somebody is as bad as a person who releases poison gas into a room full of people! Well I think not. So, do you think that a serial killer who manages to kill 15 people is somehow a 'better' person than the serial killer who kills 30, if the number is just a matter of time before getting caught? What if the guy releasing poison gas is doing so because he feels he has to; everyone in that room has been infected with a super-virus, and if he doesn't half the world's population might die? And what about the mugger who gets spooked and shoots two victims one night, and a guy who only killed once, but planned it out, videotaped it, and spent hours at the actual killing, not to mention what they did to the body afterwards. Number is a horribly shortsighted method to determine morality. For killing 30 people his alignment goes straigth to evil numbers wise! Him waking another morning and going as nothing has happened is him roleplaying and evil guy. Him regreting his actions a few week later is him roleplaying a change to neutral. And to change to good he will need to make it right! Either by submiting himself to justice or by doing something heroicly good to atone for his deeds! Actions do not alignment changes make. As the DMG says; indecisiveness means Neutrality. If you commit an evil act, but are torn between the sated feelings of vengeance and the moral horror at your deeds, you're Neutral. The DMG also says alignment changes are gradual, and suggests a week or so for each change. I'd say, in that week, if the PC in question was pleased with his vengeance, he'd swing to evil. If he regrets his actions, or is even torn about them, he remains neutral. Similarly, to become 'good' he'd have to change his worldview. Just doing something heroically good isn't enough to become good. For instance, picture an evil mage. He wants a safe base of power to practice his dark arts. So, he moves into a village and acts like a nice guy. He saves their livestock from wolves, he staves off a famine, he helps defend the village. And, when a dragon appears one day, fends it off single-handedly. That's heroically good. But the mage is doing so only because this makes the villagers like him and protect him in return. And it means they'll be slow to suspect him of kidnapping their daughters and performing the experiments he has to do to further his plot. He's thoroughly Evil, even before he starts in on the Evil acts. Intent and morality determine alignment, not actions.
Archangel 06-16-04, 07:43 AM	Well I didn't mention intent because I thought that intelligent people would know what I mean, not use every word in my sentences to prove their point!
Thorak 06-16-04, 12:19 PM	Originally posted by Archangel Well I didn't mention intent because I thought that intelligent people would know what I mean, not use every word in my sentences to prove their point! So, because I can carefully pick apart your argument piece by piece, and show it to be based on the silly assumption that the morality of an act is based on 'how many' rather than 'why and how', I'm somehow not 'intelligent people'? I request you refrain from the poorly-veiled insults, since they're against the CoC. Oh, and that's also a nice Straw Man argument you have there, implying that I'm wrong and you're right because I 'used every word in your sentences to prove my point.' I still proved my point, and showed why your opinion is based on a statistical analysis of a moral situation, something that never works out. Now, if you've actually got a point, or a valid defense, please post it instead of thinly veiled ad hominem arguments.
bitnine 06-16-04, 02:38 PM	Originally posted by Archangel Well I didn't mention intent because I thought that intelligent people would know what I mean, not use every word in my sentences to prove their point!Wait, now you've got me a little confused... Are you saying that once you see someone back up their arguments you take them to be unintelligent? Or the intelligent thing to do is to make assertions and hold them as self-evident without support. Anyways, to reassert what I stated previously, just remember that your character doesn't know about his character sheet or what's written on it. Just determine your actions as your character would. Unless there's a metagame constraint like game alignment restrictions from your DM (which it doesn't sound like), nothing all that much to worry about.
Sereno 06-16-04, 03:09 PM	Originally posted by Thorak Killing the thirty was a single act. If it had been thirty separate killings, it would have been thirty separate acts. As it stands, this was one single bloodbath. The number of victims is morally irrelevant, what matters is how the character feels about those killings. Killing thirty in a "bloodlust spree", IMHO, would only count as one act if they were all killed together (say in a fireball that got bad guys and innocents alike). The typical house-of-ill-repute (picture the 'billiards' upstairs in Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven") has lots of small rooms. The killers would have had to kick in each door and kill the people within; obviously they would have posed no threat to the PCs at all, as they were otherwise ... er ... engaged. Scale does change the depth of the evil. Killing the slavers who captured them, brutal but justified. Killing the patrons of the house indescriminately, VERY evil. Perhaps, if the character wants to get back to the side of good, he can make some sort of reparations to the families of the murder victims. Especially ones who might have been victims themselves.
Kantor Brightblade 06-16-04, 03:27 PM	In order to keep this thread on target I'm going to jump in again. :D The room with the 30 or so other people was actually more akin to the Meat Locker Club from Hitman Contracts....if anyone here has played that. It was a huge room, with all 30 people doing what they paid for. Everyone knew what they were there for so there was no sense in hiding from it. The scheme behind the "House of Ill Repute" was a private one. It wasn't legal in the town we were in. So we took out a private illegal establishment. The downside being we killed the "Employees" as well. This is the act weighing on his mind. The 'indescriminant' slaughter of patrons. They were all participating in an illegal act. And those that were 'slaves' or patrons...didn't seem different at the time. The actions against those that were killed were never viewed in a context of "All dirty people must die" it was more of a "All those that have wronged me and may wrong me again".....keep in mind My character and his girlfriend were TORTURED and beaten before they escaped. Their minds weren't in the "happy place" when all the bad stuff went down. He really has no need to redeem himself in the eyes of anyone. He doesn't want to be Goodly...never has been. He's just afraid he's turning into the people he's had to defend himself from in the past.
Sereno 06-16-04, 03:36 PM	Originally posted by Kantor Brightblade In order to keep this thread on target I'm going to jump in again. :D The room with the 30 or so other people was actually more akin to the Meat Locker Club from Hitman Contracts....if anyone here has played that. It was a huge room, with all 30 people doing what they paid for. Everyone knew what they were there for so there was no sense in hiding from it. The scheme behind the "House of Ill Repute" was a private one. It wasn't legal in the town we were in. So we took out a private illegal establishment. The downside being we killed the "Employees" as well. This is the act weighing on his mind. The 'indescriminant' slaughter of patrons. They were all participating in an illegal act. And those that were 'slaves' or patrons...didn't seem different at the time. The actions against those that were killed were never viewed in a context of "All dirty people must die" it was more of a "All those that have wronged me and may wrong me again".....keep in mind My character and his girlfriend were TORTURED and beaten before they escaped. Their minds weren't in the "happy place" when all the bad stuff went down. He really has no need to redeem himself in the eyes of anyone. He doesn't want to be Goodly...never has been. He's just afraid he's turning into the people he's had to defend himself from in the past. OK, fair enough, I did say "typical" house-of-ill-repute :) In regards to this sort of thing, yuck! :confused: However, I would ask how the character came to the decision that a bunch of people in a room going at it "may wrong me again" and needed to die. That, IMHO, is where you *chose* to do evil. What your character does from NOW on will determine your ultimate alignment; if you keep acting like this you'll never lose the taint you've given your aura. If you go back to being good, the evil will fade. That the place was illegal doesn't imply that everyone involved deserved a death sentence (unless that WAS the law of a highly LE nation).
Kantor Brightblade 06-16-04, 03:50 PM	The choice to take out the rest of the establishment came essentially from the fear of more pain and torture from the friends or allies...or even some patrons for the killing of the 'slavers' that caught us. I understand that this is the crux of the argument and that's why I'm looking for as many answers as possible. They, in our minds, we no different. We could have just left the building, yes, but we felt that they were just as vile as those that caught us and thus, deserved the same fate. People that kidnap, beat, torture and abuse in order to aquire employees generally don't have clientelle that are Goodly sorts. We thought that they would hunt us down and kill us so we pre-empted them. (Although we were followed and ambushed by other slavers anyway) The act itself leaves only a minor bitter taste in his mouth for the pseudo innocent 'slaves'......Kyrian is really only concerned about whether or not he's the type to kill again out of bloodlust or he can move past it and remain the man he was before.
green_yawgmoth 06-16-04, 05:44 PM	From a person who is Neutral Evil, I would say that character sounds right in the Chaotic Neutral box. He does what he thinks is right (CG), but goes overboard and gets ****** at the gods (crazy). Just my 2cp.
Carkni 06-17-04, 01:32 AM	If you convert copper pieces into real money, it's actually two cents for one copper. You should get your other copper back.
bitnine 06-17-04, 02:20 AM	Originally posted by green_yawgmoth From a person who is Neutral Evil, I would say that character sounds right in the Chaotic Neutral box. He does what he thinks is right (CG), but goes overboard and gets ****** at the gods (crazy). Just my 2cp. Hm. You mean as a person who at most times does what he feels is right and honestly helps people and does good at times, but at others winds up doing evil, stemming from his lack of control?
Archangel 06-17-04, 06:57 AM	From a person who is Neutral Evil, I would say that character sounds right in the Chaotic Neutral box. He does what he thinks is right (CG), but goes overboard and gets ****** at the gods (crazy). Just my 2cp. Definition of CN being Crazy is 2nd Edition. It has changed in 3rd!
MrkGrismer 06-17-04, 07:27 AM	Originally posted by Thorak And by 'morally irrelevant', I mean a killing spree is 'bad'. It doesn't get 'worse' by adding a few more or 'better' by killing a few less. It's just bad, period. The number is irrelevant. Right... as long as it is not genocide it ain't that bad, eh?
MrkGrismer 06-17-04, 07:36 AM	Whether it was legal or not is only a concern for the lawful character. I don't see any problem with killing the patrons, especially if they knew they were using slaves. But killing the slaves, that is become the type of person the character hates. Look at it from the (now hacked to bits) slaves veiw.
Thorak 06-17-04, 09:27 AM	Originally posted by MrkGrismer Right... as long as it is not genocide it ain't that bad, eh? I never said it wasn't horrible to kill someone. My point was that most people's gut reaction, like yours, is that killing more people is 'worse'. If you turn it around, though, does this mean killing less people makes you a better person? Here, most people will disagree, even though it's the logical reverse of "killing more people is worse." And, like I said, it's the intent behind the killing that defines the morality. Euthanasia, for instance, putting someone out of a life of agony at their request, when there is no hope for them to recover, is not as morally reprehensible (note the 'as'; I don't personally agree euthanasia is 'right') as a psychotic who takes three days flaying a girl alive, because the sight of her skinless and still breathing turns him on. The psycho and the euthaniser have both killed one person, but I think we can both agree the psycho is a much, much worse person. He still is if the euthaniser has ended a few people's lives at their request. And for those two reasons, defining how bad an act is based only on the numbers isn't a good way to determine the morality behind it. Numbers don't determine right and wrong. Obviously, genocide is bad. My point is that a genocide killing a small population of 500 isn't 'better' than one killing 50,000. It's still genocide.
Sereno 06-17-04, 12:34 PM	Originally posted by Kantor Brightblade We thought that they would hunt us down and kill us so we pre-empted them. (Although we were followed and ambushed by other slavers anyway) The act itself leaves only a minor bitter taste in his mouth for the pseudo innocent 'slaves'......Kyrian is really only concerned about whether or not he's the type to kill again out of bloodlust or he can move past it and remain the man he was before. A good question to ask is this: how would you feel if you hadn't escaped and were forced to "serve" in the establishment and then someone else, upon escaping, rampaged through the place and slaughtered you and your friend because you "deserved" it? THIS act was clearly evil ... very evil ... you killed wantonly and without remorse for no other reason than your own (irrational) fears. The patrons of the illegal house may very well have been slaves (as you might have been) or clueless immoral people (but still not deserving a wholesale death sentence). What REALLY matters, from now on, is how your character deals with these sorts of situations. If he draws steel and wades through rivers of blood, again, he's definately chosen the dark side. If he stops and remembers what happened here and seeks a more peaceful (and probably more beneficial to society) solution he could be back on the path to goodness.
MrkGrismer 06-17-04, 12:38 PM	Originally posted by Thorak I never said it wasn't horrible to kill someone. My point was that most people's gut reaction, like yours, is that killing more people is 'worse'. If you turn it around, though, does this mean killing less people makes you a better person? Here, most people will disagree, even though it's the logical reverse of "killing more people is worse." I think I have to disagree with this. Killing fewer people is better, that's why "smart bombs" are better then "dumb bombs." Fewer innocents killed. Otherwise carpet bombing cities would be just fine. And, like I said, it's the intent behind the killing that defines the morality. Euthanasia, for instance, putting someone out of a life of agony at their request, when there is no hope for them to recover, is not as morally reprehensible (note the 'as'; I don't personally agree euthanasia is 'right') as a psychotic who takes three days flaying a girl alive, because the sight of her skinless and still breathing turns him on. The psycho and the euthaniser have both killed one person, but I think we can both agree the psycho is a much, much worse person. He still is if the euthaniser has ended a few people's lives at their request. I agree. More to the topic. There are three levels of people the character killed: 1. The Slavers (killed Evil wrongdoers, not a problem for D&D 'good' people) 2. The Patrons (killed neutral wrongdoers, these being criminals; probably excessive for a non-neutral, but not necessarily enough evil to turn, a jostle in that direction tho) 3. The "employees" (if these are unwilling slaves, and it seems they were, then these were innocents) Assuming the 30 patrons and "employees" were evenly divided (were they? we have not been told) then that would be 15 innoncent people. Killing one innocent person is evil. Killing two is more evil (maybe not twice as evil), killing three is even more. Maybe killing fifteen is not fifteen times as evil as killing one, but it is certainly far more evil. Mass murder is worse then murder. To the OP: I am curious, did the slaves beg for their lives while your character was slaughtering them? Because this would make a difference as well (at least in my book/ my campaign). And for those two reasons, defining how bad an act is based only on the numbers isn't a good way to determine the morality behind it. Numbers don't determine right and wrong. No, numbers alone don't determine. But a greater amount of evil is still a greater amount. Obviously, genocide is bad. My point is that a genocide killing a small population of 500 isn't 'better' than one killing 50,000. It's still genocide. Actually, destroying a species that only numbers 500 IS less bad then destroying one that number 50,000. There is a lot more effort involved in destroying 50,000.
MrkGrismer 06-17-04, 12:50 PM	Originally posted by Kantor Brightblade The act itself leaves only a minor bitter taste in his mouth for the pseudo innocent 'slaves'......Kyrian is really only concerned about whether or not he's the type to kill again out of bloodlust or he can move past it and remain the man he was before. I don't understand what makes the slaves (why the 'quotes'?) only "pseudo innocent". Are you saying they were willing participants? If the character is not concerned about slaughtering unwilling slaves then he should be perfectly happy being a card-carrying member of the Vile and Evil Club.
Thorak 06-17-04, 01:51 PM	Originally posted by MrkGrismer I think I have to disagree with this. Killing fewer people is better, that's why "smart bombs" are better then "dumb bombs." Fewer innocents killed. Otherwise carpet bombing cities would be just fine. What you're talking about is called things like "collateral damage". And, IMHO, it's just as misleading a term as "greater good". Both are justifications for evil, IMHO. I personally see a "smart bomb" that kills 1 civilian as just as evil as a "dumb bomb" that kills 100. It's putting a numerical value, even if it's just a relative one, on innocent human lives. IMHO, that's what soldiers are for; to die so that civilians don't. Even the enemy's civilians. But this isn't the place to digress into a political discussion, so I digress. Actually, destroying a species that only numbers 500 IS less bad then destroying one that number 50,000. There is a lot more effort involved in destroying 50,000. Going back to your bomb analogy, if you pile both species within the blast radius of a bomb, there's identical effort in wiping each out. And neither is the 'better' evil in that case. Genocide is genocide, murder is murder. Claiming it's OK because the number wasn't overly large is an absolutely horrible statement. And, as a last semi-political statement, consider the following; if a government is saying "Hey, we're doing great! We've only killed XXXX innocent civilians so far!", how is that ever a Good thing?
MrkGrismer 06-17-04, 03:26 PM	Okay, first of all I am not claiming killing is a good thing, please do not suggest that I am. Next, yes it is always better to kill fewer and worse to kill more. Your line of thinking when faced with the infamous "one or one million question" would result in a response of "it doesn't matter, both are equal." I believe very few people would agree with that estimation. Taken further that would mean that a slap is just as bad as ten years of torture, since both actions are simply inflicting pain, the amount of pain would be irrelevant.
Krelios 06-17-04, 03:52 PM	There was a building attatched to the place we were taken, where the 30 or so other people were. The Courtiers and Patrons were doing their business. We killed them all, not distinguishing between the Slavers we just killed and who may or may not be innocent.No one disputes that your characters were acting chaotically, and regardless of your alignment, it seems like what your characters might realistically do given their history and the fact that they were just tortured. However, destroying an illegal establishment, it's owners (the slavers) and even the patrons (who were all commiting crimes by being there and engaging in the practice) could have been the work of an overly zealous Paladin--once you crossed the line into murdering the slaves who were victims of the crime, when you yourself had just been victims was a Chaotic Evil act, plain and simple. You indiscriminantly killed more than two dozen people, without regard for their innocence or guilt--there's no way that can be described as anything but evil. I'm not saying you shouldn't have done what you did, if your characters were Chaotic evil it would have been par for the course. If they were Chaotic Neutral, they're probably Chaotic Evil now. If they were Chaotic Good, well they're probably Chaotic Neutral now since they didn't explicitly look for innocents to murder, but killed some nonetheless.
Thorak 06-17-04, 09:39 PM	Originally posted by MrkGrismer Okay, first of all I am not claiming killing is a good thing, please do not suggest that I am. Next, yes it is always better to kill fewer and worse to kill more. Your line of thinking when faced with the infamous "one or one million question" would result in a response of "it doesn't matter, both are equal." I believe very few people would agree with that estimation. Taken further that would mean that a slap is just as bad as ten years of torture, since both actions are simply inflicting pain, the amount of pain would be irrelevant. Yes, when confronted with the "one or one million" question, my answer isn't "one". But it's not "it doesn't matter, both are equal" either. My answer is "Both require me to commit murder, so I choose option #3." Or "I choose the one, and I will be the one." But, looking at the perpetrator and not the [/i]crime[/i], it doesn't matter if he kills one or one million. He's a killer either way. Obviously, killing a million people is a horrible act. And I would agree it's a worse act than killing only one. But when looking at the person committing the act, I think number is irrelevant. Killing one person makes you a killer. Killing ten doesn't make you a worse person, it just means you've been smart enough to not get caught. Obviously, the crime is worse, but we're not discussing the crime, we're discussing the perp. Going back to collateral damage and the deaths of innocent civilians; it's been called "unavoidable" and "the cost of war", and has to be done for "the greater good". What these all translate into is either "It's cheaper to do it this way" or "it's less risky for us". In other words, the killing of innocents is done either for financial reasons, or because of cowardice and/or racial superiority beliefs. You could easily minimize civilian casualties in, say, Iraq by marching troops through cities, using only small-arms fire and personal weaponry, as opposed to large-scale missiles. Sure, more American soldiers would die. However, that's what they signed on to do. Armies exist to be the people to risk their lives so civilians don't have to. Even if 100,000 soldiers die to save 1 civilian life, that's what they're there for. If they're not there to protect civilians, why do they exist at all? I've heard numbers of something like 10,000 Iraqi civilians dead in this Iraq conflict so far. This is no different, morally, than if all of the Iraqi resistance moved into an American town of 10,000, holding them hostage, and the Americans nailed the town with missiles until it was flattened. It's an easy justification to make if it's 'their' people dying, but that shows an underlying belief that your people are somehow innately 'better', or more deserving of life, than the Iraqi people. Okay, no more politics for me. While I disagree with American actions, I'm only using them as an example to illustrate my point, not to start a debate on it, this isn't the place for that.
MrkGrismer 06-17-04, 10:40 PM	And if #3 still results in the million dieing? (and in most such cases it certainly would) Originally posted by Thorak Obviously, killing a million people is a horrible act. And I would agree it's a worse act than killing only one. But when looking at the person committing the act, I think number is irrelevant. Killing one person makes you a killer. Killing ten doesn't make you a worse person, it just means you've been smart enough to not get caught. Obviously, the crime is worse, but we're not discussing the crime, we're discussing the perp. A mass murderer is a worse person then somebody that kills a single person in the heat of passion. And somebody who plots to kill millions of innocent people is worse yet. If you truly believe that all three are the same then I cannot discuss this with you further, as I am honestly dumbfounded by your 'morality.' As for the RL example, do you honestly think small arms firefights result in ZERO civilian casualties? Perhaps you should look at 'collateral damage' statistics and trends over the past 200+ years of conflict.
Kantor Brightblade 06-18-04, 05:56 AM	Before this goes into a debacle of Foreign Policies......I'd like to clear up things I, sadly, have yet to clear up. The quotes behind the words slaves is meant as an allusion to their subjigation. As we made our way through the building, the Patrons and Employees (Yes..a 15/15 split is correct) were in no way fighting each other or avoiding the intents of the establishment. They, to us, looked like willing participants. My character was actually a Chaotic Neutral turned Chaotic Good before this event, I would assume that after all your posts and comments that he would be deemed CN again. As for my girlfriend, I believe she is the same CN as I, but the GM runs her so I cant be sure. There were no screams for mercy or crys for help. Quite frankly we took out the entire building to quick for anyone to scream more than once. We are quite the efficient team, when our heads are put to the same goal. I appreciate the discussion and detail oriented replies and questions. They have helped greatly in my RPing strategy. Please keep it up
Thorak 06-18-04, 06:56 AM	Originally posted by MrkGrismer A mass murderer is a worse person then somebody that kills a single person in the heat of passion. And somebody who plots to kill millions of innocent people is worse yet. If you truly believe that all three are the same then I cannot discuss this with you further, as I am honestly dumbfounded by your 'morality.' A theoretical example. Joe decides he's going to set a bomb, cause he's a horrible horrible man. He sets the bomb and walks away. Let's say it will kill about 500 people. Is he suddenly a morally better person if somebody finds the bomb and disarms it? How about, instead of setting a single bomb, he slowly tortures to death 500 people, one at a time, relishing their screams of agony? If he's not a better person because his bomb got found and removed, number of people killed is irrelevant. If torturing people to death one by one is somehow worse than killing the same number with a single bomb, again, number isn't the determining factor in how bad Joe is. Your examples have offsetting factors. The person killing a single person is doing so 'in the heat of passion'. That changes things, because it wasn't planned. As for the difference between a mere mass murderer and someone who's killed millions, I have another theoretical example. Say there's a terrorist group. They have multiple nefarious plots for bombs and such all over the world, and hatch more every day. Are they somehow better people if all their bombs but one are found and disarmed? Here the only difference is the number of people killed. You're confusing the degree of the crime with the morality of the perpetrator. I'm sure most mass murderers never stopped to think "Okay, that's 50. I can't kill more than 50, that would be wrong." As for the RL example, do you honestly think small arms firefights result in ZERO civilian casualties? Perhaps you should look at 'collateral damage' statistics and trends over the past 200+ years of conflict. That depends. In situations like, say, Vietnam, the US was trying to protect South Vietnamese civilians from attacks. I'm sure small arms killed civilians there, but I would also be willing to bet that most of those deaths were purposeful shots from North Vietnamese troops. Though if you have a source for collateral damage statistics over the last 200 years, or more, I'd be willing to look at it. I can't find anything that has reliable information on more than Iraq, trying to Google it. I'm still willing to bet that civilian casualties to small arms fire are a lot less, proportionally, than those killed by bombs, relative to number of enemy combatants killed. Small arms are discriminate weapons; the user has to aim and fire it at a specific target. Heck, 150 years ago, you couldn't pick a target reliably past about 100 yards with a musket. That's why tactics required them to line up and fire volleys; getting enough lead traveling in roughly the same direction that specific aiming didn't matter. Under those conditions, civilian casualties from arms fire would be intentional, and thus I wouldn't consider them 'collateral damage'. That's a term for damage outside what was intended.
MrkGrismer 06-18-04, 05:21 PM	Having the bomb removed by another just means the person is a failure, not any less evil. Small arms fire post musket involves a lot of shooting at stuff you can't really see, which really ups the accident rate. For some statistics: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm & especially http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm and http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm But best of all: We've got rich countries and poor countries; industrial and agrarian; big and small. We've got people of all colors -- white, black, yellow and brown -- widely represented among both the slaughterers and the slaughterees. We've got Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and Atheists all butchering one another in the name of their various gods or lack thereof. Among the perpetrators, we've got political leanings of the left, right and middle; some are monarchies; some are dictatorships and some are even democracies. We've got innocent victims invaded by big, bad neighbors, and we've got plenty of countries who brought it on themselves, sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind. Go on -- take a third look. Find any type of country that is not represented among the agents of a major blooding, and probably the only reason for that is that there aren't that many countries in that category to begin with (There are no Hindu or Jewish countries on the chart, but then, there's only one of each on the whole planet, and they're both waiting in the wings among the next 25.).
smirdock 06-18-04, 10:51 PM	i think you should play your character as a fugative on the run because it would be more funner that way, i mean come on playing as a goodie-to-shoe isnt always as fun as playing as a fugitive on the run..but play your character any way you want..
Ruke 06-19-04, 12:01 AM	I'm going to be different and say that you're probably not evil. Your reaction was perfectly reasonable, even for a Good person. No one can be Good all the time, and it is much more important to play a realistic character than to stick to your alignment. Besides, you didn't kill them for fun, you killed them to protect yourselves or others. I'd probably switch you to Chaotic Neutral. If you feel really sorry, seek out Atonement. Since you also hate Relligion so much, that'd more than prove you really want to be good.
Kantor Brightblade 06-19-04, 12:13 AM	That's just the thing. He doesn't want to Atone...because that would indicate he thinks he did something wrong. Which he doesnt. I mentioned before that the actions themselves weren't the issue. Just the degree to which it was performed. As a character, hes had to kill before. Protection, defense, all the reasons you would have to take someone out. This situation is entire different in the aspect that he thinks he's becoming something he hates and kills. So, the fact that he's Chaotic Neutral....is really what I'm looking for. His hatred for the god's of my DM's world...and the fact he thinks he did a good thing just might have overkilled (no pun intended) would never put him in a position to Atone.
Thorak 06-19-04, 01:05 PM	Originally posted by MrkGrismer Having the bomb removed by another just means the person is a failure, not any less evil. Small arms fire post musket involves a lot of shooting at stuff you can't really see, which really ups the accident rate. For some statistics: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm & especially http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm and http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Unfortunately, these all deal with 20th century conflicts, and have no distinctions between civilians killed by deliberate or accidental actions. So, for comparing how many civilians were dying to accidental small arms fire 200 years ago, they completely useless. For that matter, they're completely useless for the wars they do cover. They make no distinctions between collateral damage deaths from accidental fire, or from people deliberately tortured and killed by nasty regimes, or from people who died in deliberate actions like the Allied firebombings of places like Hamburg in WWII. Though your first line seems to say you agree with what I've been saying, so I'm a bit confused. Deliberately killing noncombatants is Evil with a capital E. I don't see any difference between, say, firing a missile at an installation and knowing ~100 civilians will die as a result, and just walking into a crowd with a pistol and firing 100 times. Either way, you have decided to kill 100 innocent people. It's never, IMHO, justified. I would much rather see 1000 or 10,000 of 'our' soldiers die taking that same installation, so that they can have the discretion to not shoot the civilians. That's why soldiers are soldiers; so they can die in place of civilians. If we distinguish between 'our' and 'their' civilians, we're declaring racial or cultural superiority, and that's just as wrong, but for entirely different reasons.
MrkGrismer 06-19-04, 02:27 PM	Originally posted by Thorak Unfortunately, these all deal with 20th century conflicts, and have no distinctions between civilians killed by deliberate or accidental actions. So, for comparing how many civilians were dying to accidental small arms fire 200 years ago, they completely useless. For that matter, they're completely useless for the wars they do cover. They make no distinctions between collateral damage deaths from accidental fire, or from people deliberately tortured and killed by nasty regimes, or from people who died in deliberate actions like the Allied firebombings of places like Hamburg in WWII. No, they make no distinction between the people's intentions. But yet the number of deaths are horrific, and if these statistics were from a D&D world, there would assuredly be evil going on. But exactly which participants were and were not evil? As you say, not enough information. Though your first line seems to say you agree with what I've been saying, so I'm a bit confused. What you are confused that whether somebody else removes the bomb the original bomber still attempted to blow up large numbers of innocent people? I don't see what is confusing, what the original person did was the same thing, he placed a bomb in order to blow up innocent peole. Just because he failed doesn't mean he is any less evil. Is that clearer? Deliberately killing noncombatants is Evil with a capital E. I don't see any difference between, say, firing a missile at an installation and knowing ~100 civilians will die as a result, and just walking into a crowd with a pistol and firing 100 times. Either way, you have decided to kill 100 innocent people. It's never, IMHO, justified. No disagreement here. I would much rather see 1000 or 10,000 of 'our' soldiers die taking that same installation, so that they can have the discretion to not shoot the civilians. That's why soldiers are soldiers; so they can die in place of civilians. If we distinguish between 'our' and 'their' civilians, we're declaring racial or cultural superiority, and that's just as wrong, but for entirely different reasons. And who is doing that? Look, having a platoon take out their daggers and stab themselves isn't going to 'take the installation.' If the 'installation' must be taken for the (assumedly 'greater good') purpose then it must be taken. It doesn't really matter if the 'bad guys' are taken out with a missile or a sniper shot, as long as civilian casualties are minimized. Now if you have a hypothetic situation where there is a bunch of, let's say Nalfeshnee, holed up in a building in the middle of an otherwise peaceful city. The party knows exactly which building they are in, and that their Meateor Swarm spells are of such effect that they would only harm that particular building. Do they: 1) Take a flying carpet, cast Greater Invisibility on themselves, fly over the building and take it, and the Nalfeshnee (always evil) inside out with multiple Meateor Swarm spells? or 2) Take a hundred people with bows, crossbows and swords and perform a frontal assault on the building, despite the fact that the Nalfeshnee inside care nothing for the surrounding civilians and will likely use their call lightning abilities indescrimately? #1 has the opportunity to take out the 'bad guys' with a minimum chance of any civilian casualties at all. The only thing is if the party is mistaken about which building (which they are confident they are not) then it would mean killing lots of innocents. #2 has the opportunity for the party to be sure that they are not directly responsible for killing innocents (they can be sure of their targets with each arrow, bolt, or sword swing), but the chances are very high that because the enemy has no qualms about killing civilians that they won't care whether they target civilians or not, nor will they care about collapsing the surrounding buildings or summoning more demons to join in the fray (and the chaos that brings with it).
MrkGrismer 06-19-04, 03:11 PM	Originally posted by Thorak Unfortunately, these all deal with 20th century conflicts, and have no distinctions between civilians killed by deliberate or accidental actions. So, for comparing how many civilians were dying to accidental small arms fire 200 years ago, they completely useless. For that matter, they're completely useless for the wars they do cover. They make no distinctions between collateral damage deaths from accidental fire, or from people deliberately tortured and killed by nasty regimes, or from people who died in deliberate actions like the Allied firebombings of places like Hamburg in WWII. At the time I didn't have a chance for a thorough search, but try here: http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/SmallArms.asp Some excerps: Small arms are weapons of mass destruction, killing half a million people around the world each year. That’s far higher than the casualty count from conventional weapons of war like tanks, bomber jets or warships. These lethal weapons are relatively cheap, highly portable, easily concealable, long lasting, and so easy to operate that a child as young as eight years old can carry and use them. These characteristics make small arms particularly susceptible to illicit trafficking. They are often sold illegally in exchange for hard currency or goods such as diamonds, drugs, or other contraband. Estimates of the black market trade in small arms range from US$2-10 billion a year. The majority of people killed in wars, coups d’état and other armed conflicts are victims of small arms – about 300,000 deaths each year. Most of these are civilians. Small arms truly are weapons of mass destruction. Also: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/smarms.htm The human costs of this lethal commerce are awesome. In modern conflicts over 80 percent of all casualties are civilians and 90 percent of civilian causalities are caused by small arms. The growing availability of small arms helps spawn conflicts. http://www.controlarms.org/downloads/shattered_lives.htm More people are killed or injured by small arms than by heavy weapons. Most wars today are fought within nations. Conflicts often involve several different armed forces, sometimes divided along ethnic lines. They usually involve irregular forces fighting in civilian areas. The civilian casualty figures show the impact of these trends. Best estimates are that 14 per cent of total casualties were civilians in the First World War. This increased to 67 per cent in the Second World War, and has grown even higher in many of today’s wars. For example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Colombia the distinction between civilians and combatants is often blurred by the actions of government and illegal armed actors alike. Civilians are used as a cover for military and paramilitary operations, as a shield against air or artillery attacks, and as providers of subsistence, shelter, and sexual gratification – mostly at the point of a gun. They are then attacked in reprisal killings and suffer the denial of material aid. Combatants tend to use civilian infrastructure, telecommunications, and logistics for military purposes – making the distinction between military and civilian targets very difficult. That's about all I have time for right now. Happy Googling!