Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nicholas the Paladin 11-17-04, 03:29 AM	HI there, I'd like to discuss a situation that happened recently in our campaign. My group wanted to infiltrate a town held by the forces of Bane. One way of doing this my group reasoned, was to steal the uniforms from a couple of normal (officially enlisted) soldiers of Bane and pose as one of them. They had an opportunity at a bar outside the town. Banite soldiers came there to drink away their money and many of them were quite drunk. Opportunity presented itself when one of the soldiers stumbled to the forest edge to have a pee. My group (being the great hunters that they are) attacked the man from behind and the general idea was to knock him out, tie him up and steal his clothes. Simple, but effective. But now the reason for this discussion: - One character knocked the soldier on the back of the head; knocking him unconsious. - A second PC (a wiseguy sorceror) hit him again for good measure...... killing him in the process. That's when a discussion started, that lasting for about 2 hours. My group consists of: LG Paladin LG Cleric NG rogue NG Druid CG Sorceror - The paladin and cleric reasoned that when the soldier was knocked out, he was no longer a thread and you should respect every life. - The sorceror reasoned that by not killing the Banite soldier, you would eventually endager innocent lives. And after all; "he's just a Banite" I think that the CG sorceror went too far and am thinking about giving him an XP-penalty. What are your thoughts about this situation??
Gedrin 11-17-04, 03:56 AM	First, those of us who've been on the boards a bit realize this is destined to devolve into a painfully repetative argument regarding alignment. I'm not going to address alignment, so hopefully that'll forestall things. I will say how I would view such actions morally in my own game. Draw your own conclusions. Part 1: Wacking a guy on the head for a disguise. No problem here. Part 2: Wacking the unconcious guy for good measure. No reason to hit the unconcious and helpless guy, providing you actually believe he's unconcious and helpless. It is a thuggish act of senseless brutality. While it doesn't appear that the soldier was considered a threat, things would be different if he were percieved as dangerous. Part 3: Then the guy's dead. Intent: I doubt it was intended for the soldier to die. So we're looking at a "I didn't mean to KILL him" situaiton. Result: Dead soldier. Intentional or not, the guy's dead. Judgement: An intentional act of harm, not intended or forseen at the time to be lethal, resulted in the death of a helpless prisoner. This is not what I would consider murder. It was wrong to strike a man percieved as helpless. As a result of this wrong act, the man did die. It may not have been the intention of the PC to kill the man, but that is the result. The PC is responsible for the death of the soldier, but it does not appear to be murder. Complication: Pattern of Behavior and/or Gross Negligence It's one thing for a STR 10 character to punch an unconcious man. It's a totally different thing for a STR 18 character to do so. It would be an act of gross negligence for the latter character to strike someone rendered unconcious by beating with their full force. They may not have been wanting to kill the person, but there's a reasonable expectation that the person would be seriously harmed. Further, if the PC has displayed a pattern of casual violence toward the helpless it would seem to indicate a level of calousness to the vulnerable. I would question how this character would act if placed in other positions of power, where others were at his mercy. It may be that this is a character that only behaves morally out of fear, rather than a true belief in the sanctity of life. I would view this as a calous act resulting in a consequence unforseen, but clearly possible. The PC did a bad thing. It was wrong to strike the wounded prisoner who was percieved as helpless. Killing wasn't the intent, but it seems obvious that beating on people forcefully made unconcious could hurt them badly. I would advise the player that this sort of calous and brutal treatment of the helpless, even enemy prisoners, is typically associated with the Evil alignment. Additionally, I would provide advice on how a Good character might deal with the situation, and explain that one of the key differences between Good and Evil is that Good is frequently willing to take risks in order to preserve life.
Mordmorgan the Mad 11-17-04, 04:06 AM	Short Version: Did the Sorcerer intend to kill the guard? If yes, apply the XP penalty. If no, don't. (Out of curiosity, what did the Sorcerer hit the Banite with?)
FriendoftheDork 11-17-04, 04:53 AM	It's your game, but I can't see how the sorc could have killed the guy without performing a coup de grace. And those are never accidents! So I assume his intent since he didn't seem to have made a mistake. Was it wrong to kill a helpless man? I think so, even if he was a soldier of an evil organization. Another question is: was it necessary to kill him? Since they could tie him up he'd probably not be found for awhile so I guess not. I understand quite well that the pally and cleric objected to this, as it was no honor in killing a helpess enemy. The sorc probably hates Banites, so it seems like appropriate RP for him to do so, even if he's generally a good person. Conclusion: let the rest of the party handle it in game. If most of them agree that this is not how they should act the sorc should respect that or leave. There should be no need for any xp-penalty, although you could warn him that if he continues killing helpless people and such he will become chaotic neutral fast.
PhaedrusXY 11-17-04, 05:56 AM	Why do people want to dock character XP for alignment issues, anyway? I don't remember ever seeing anything about this in the rules, but it comes up frequently. If he's acting evil repeatedly, then change his character's alignment to evil. Give him warnings first, if it is a buildup of alot of things like this, rather than a truly abhorrent act that shifts his alignment all at once. If you don't allow evil PCs in your game, then make him make a new character if he becomes evil.
Nicholas the Paladin 11-17-04, 06:18 AM	Part 3: Then the guy's dead. Intent: I doubt it was intended for the soldier to die. So we're looking at a "I didn't mean to KILL him" situaiton. Okay, this was a bit unclear. The Sorcerer (STR17, everyone is about level 3) knocked the guy dead and when confronted with his action, right away started to defend himself by saying: "c'mon, it's just a Banite, the world is better of without this kind of people." He never said: "damn, I didn't mean for this to happen." But, it's a bit in his (player's) nature to get obstinate/rowdy when people confront him with his actions/tell him what to do. Complication: Pattern of Behavior and/or Gross Negligence Further, if the PC has displayed a pattern of casual violence toward the helpless it would seem to indicate a level of calousness to the vulnerable. Indeed, this is what's been bothering me the last 12 years actually (no, we ARE friends). He's almost always playing the same Alignment (as in 'in play', on paper it changes, but you can't see the difference), same kind of personality and he's always been very careless with the lives of others and prisoners in particular. This is getting on my nerves. I would advise the player that this sort of calous and brutal treatment of the helpless, even enemy prisoners, is typically associated with the Evil alignment. This is exactly what I told him. Good has respect for life. All he can say in his defense is "c'mon he's an evil Banite." You would expect someone to learn in a 29 year lifespan, that the world is not all that black and white.
Nicholas the Paladin 11-17-04, 06:21 AM	Short Version: Did the Sorcerer intend to kill the guard? This is not exactely clear. But he never said 'sorry' either. :P (Out of curiosity, what did the Sorcerer hit the Banite with?) With a nicely cut off tree branche.
Nicholas the Paladin 11-17-04, 06:27 AM	There should be no need for any xp-penalty, although you could warn him that if he continues killing helpless people and such he will become chaotic neutral fast. We've been warning him plenty over the last 3 years at least. We emphasize on roleplaying more and more. I fear that his behaviour will give trouble fo the group. This PC doesn't take hints, so I want to be a bit clearer this time.
Nicholas the Paladin 11-17-04, 06:32 AM	If he's acting evil repeatedly, then change his character's alignment to evil. Give If you don't allow evil PCs in your game, then make him make a new character if he becomes evil. I told him this in person: - OR you try to adjust your 'style', admit that you went too far and get a penalty (sorry, roleplaying is important to us). - OR THat's just how you want to play it, change your alignment to CN or Evil, get no penalty, but expect to be in trouble with the rest of the group (the Pally in particular).
ShadowDragon8685 11-17-04, 06:42 AM	A tree branch... That's a club, so 1d6 lethal. I'd call him Chaotic Neutral at BEST, more like Chaotic Evil. Don't hand out an XP penalty - tell the Paladin that the sorcerer is glowing with evil. Let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the FLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRR!!!!!!! Let the other PCs handle it. Maybe they'll smack him up good. Maybe they'll smack him up DEAD. Then explain to him, in a VERY unsubtle way, that he has not been behaving whatever his indicated alignment is. Explain to him that Good respects life, even Evil life, to the point of reason. There was no urgent need to perform a Coup de Grace on this man. (Calling a CDG or not, he was killed while helpless, CDG.) They could've tied him up and left him in the woods. They didn't NEED to kill him. Just because he's a Banite is not an excuse. He probably wasen't even Evil - most such low-level soldiers are just in it to survive, not because they love the Cause.
Mordmorgan the Mad 11-17-04, 07:09 AM	He hit the guy with a tree branch? How many hp did the Banite have? Must not be many if he killed him in one hit. 1d6 for the tree branch plus 3 for strength, so even if the banite had 1 hp, he'd be at -8 if the sorcerer did max damage (unless he got a critical), so the paladin and the cleric should have had some time to save him. Anyway, hindsight is 20/20 and all that. Just tell the Sorc's player to stop being a jerk, or have the paladin turn him over to the authorities for murder.
Callista 11-17-04, 07:33 AM	Killing an unconscious man can be a neutral act. It depends on whether or not the sorcerer had the authority to kill the soldier. --Time of war --Official representative of the government And then there's the biggie: Intent. In our society, this makes the difference between first-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter, one of which carries the penalty of execution; the other can get you nothing but probation. The sorcerer's reasoning could've gone like this: "If this guy wakes up before we're out of here, we'll blow our cover. If I hit him again, he's less likely to wake up." If so, the killing was not evil, though it was most certainly chaotic and altogether a bit stupid (ever heard of a Sleep spell?). If the sorcerer intended to kill the guy (presumably to keep him from blowing the whistle when he woke up), it might be different, but still not evil. For example, is it evil to kill a guard while infiltrating an enemy camp? No. It wouldn't be a good act, since Good characters would attempt to preserve life even at risk to their own life; but it isn't evil since the man was a combatant on the other side of an armed struggle. However, if: --The sorcerer did it just "for good measure", even though he had reason to believe the man would stay unconscious for as long as they needed him to --The soldier did not detect as Evil (the Paladin could've told them whether this was so) --The sorcerer did it for fun, to feel powerful, etc. --The man surrendered ...then it's an evil act. If this is a trend, I'd take the sorcerer's alignment to CN. If it's an isolated incident, warn the player that his alignment may change and leave it at that. If that third option is true and marginally-evil acts have been a trend, you have the right to take him straight to CE (though not irrevocably so; he can of course repent). Depending on the paladin's personality, the paladin may attempt to reform him, smite him, turn him in to a good-aligned authority, et cetera. Have the two players discuss this before the paladin takes action. However, an experience penalty for acting only marginally out of alignment is not warranted. You shouldn't punish a player for having his character slip towards evil. Sure, things like a paladin suddenly deciding to slaughter a townful of innocents warrant such a penalty, because that's not just breaking alignment but acting out of the character's personality; but a sorcerer who kills an unconscious soldier on the other side of a battle is not extreme enough to merit accusations of bad role-playing. Alignment drift, yes; punishments, no.
Nicholas the Paladin 11-17-04, 07:34 AM	1st level soldier: 6 HP's. First PC1 hits (str18): 8 damage (k.o.), then PC2 (sorcerer) hits (str 17): 8 damage= dead. I do not think the intent was to kill, but this PC has over the years never shown any restraint either. (this sorcerer is the master of the spell 'sleep', but probably never thought of it)
Mordmorgan the Mad 11-17-04, 07:36 AM	No one hits someone with a tree branch twice on accident. Bust his alignment to Evil and set the paladin on him. If the authorities aren't good or neutral, he should take the sorcerer to his temple for punishment.
Naeron 11-17-04, 08:13 AM	This is exactly what I told him. Good has respect for life. All he can say in his defense is "c'mon he's an evil Banite." You would expect someone to learn in a 29 year lifespan, that the world is not all that black and white. Good seeks to protect innocent life, not all life, that is a definitive statment, the issue of respecting life in an implication of the first statement. A Banite soldier is de-facto an evil being due to the "Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." clause. D&D morality is very different that real-world morality, killing a non-innocent to protect the innocent or punish the guilty is a good act. Whether you kill them in battle or after knocking them unconcious is an issue on the law/chaos axis. Killing an unconcious evil Banite soldier is permissible for a CG being as far as D&D morality is concerned.
Nicholas the Paladin 11-17-04, 08:39 AM	I see what you mean. I can imagine that normal-life ethics differ from D&D-ethics. But this places us in an impractical situation. When me make an ethical judgement about a situation, you automaticly refer to what is 'usual' in everyday life. This is mostly clear. What D&D-ethics means, is not as clear. Thus it can become an easy way out. I don't want that to happen.
Ty 11-17-04, 08:48 AM	No offense but lets analogize here for a moment regarding this with a real world event. *NOTE - WARNING: If you are Politically Correct, or offended easily, skip this post, I'm not intending to offend anyone but someone nonetheless will unless I warn you ahead of time.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I think we can agree that Banites, on the whole, can be reasonably equated with the die hards of a certain radical fringe party that preached the superiority of certain races over others that took power in a certain Western Eurpoean country in the early to middle 20th century. Now, assuming you were a soldier for the US, France, England, Russia, etc. during that period of time, and one of these die hard soldiers carrying weapons and wearing obvious symbols of that regime, happened to walk up to take a leak in the bushes near where you were hiding, you wouldn't have hesitated to *blow his head clean off* instead of knocking him out. Sorry for the tone of this post but I'm tired of folks saying Lawful Good, or any Good for that matter, isn't justified in whacking off the obviously evil or co-conspirators of evil.
Naeron 11-17-04, 08:52 AM	Yes it can be a problem, fortunately D&D morality is very black and white if you want to use it. Protecting Innocent Beings is Good, making sacrifices to protect the innocent is good. Looking after oneself, making limited sacrifices to protect only ones close friends and not harming the innocent is neutral. Hurting Innocent Beings is Evil, serving the cause of evil is evil. Following superiors/rules/laws/personal code is lawful, doing what seems best at the time/opposing the imposition of order is chaotic, using a mix of these two is neutral. However many acts that we consider "evil" always remain evil in D&D because they do not protect the innocent and cannot be used that way whatever the target has done, they are an unreasonable response to any possible crime. So Rape, Genocide and child abuse will always be evil under D&D morality as they serve no purpose other than to debase life. The main noticeable difference that you will come across is in relation to killing and harming others, in modern morality killing and/or harming others is "evil". In D&D the alignment of the act is determined by the target of the act and the reason for performing it. Killing to protect the innocent is Good, killing for gain or pleasure is evil.
Callista 11-17-04, 09:01 AM	I really don't see why you wanted to give the guy an XP penalty though... an evil act is an evil act, not bad role-playing or bad play in general. A player who successfully role-plays a gradual alignment change is showing quite a bit of skill. A rash act like killing rather than knocking out an enemy soldier is apparently quite within this character's personality, so why penalize? Though, if he isn't balancing his rashness (which may indirectly end in evil results) with Good acts, discussing with the player an alignment change to CN ("individualist" style) mightn't be completely far-fetched.
Rntaboy 11-17-04, 09:08 AM	1st level soldier: 6 HP's. First PC1 hits (str18): 8 damage (k.o.), then PC2 (sorcerer) hits (str 17): 8 damage= dead. I do not think the intent was to kill, but this PC has over the years never shown any restraint either. (this sorcerer is the master of the spell 'sleep', but probably never thought of it) If they Banite took 8 points of damage right off the bat, he would be dying, unless he made a miraculous recovery. If the paladin hit him using subdual damage, he would still be at 6 real HP, but since his sub-dual damage total exceeded his real HP, he would fall unconcious. Then, when the sorc. hit him, he would fall to -2 hp and begin dying, so the party would have near an entire minute to heal him (cure Minor anyone) back so he was no longer dying. Harming a gelpless person is not a good act, but letting a man gurgle and choke to death is not either. That is how I see it atleast.
Phrennzy 11-17-04, 09:19 AM	NO EXPERIENCE POINT PENALTY EVER As the DM the most - absolute MOST - you should do is change his alignment - shift it towards evil. Not by a lot, but just a little. A callous disregard for life (he's only a Banite) is evil. But that's it. Let the situation roleplay itself out. The paladin should not be freaking out or trying to hack the Sorc to death. Maybe just a stern lecture on killing a helpless opponent. As for 'just a Banite' - he's not. He is just a person. Perhaps he reveled in the slaughter and torment - or perhaps he was making the best life he could in bad circumstances. Either way - the DM should stay clear of the argument, and NO XP PENALTY.
Nicholas the Paladin 11-17-04, 09:39 AM	Okay, I get your point(s). I understand the bad feeling some of you seem to have about XP-penalties. Why I brought it up, is because we are playing for some years now and XP-penalties have been (but not many) part of our D&D'ing. Our reasoning: when we give XP-bonusses for good roleplaying, why not give penalties for bad roleplaying. What I found a very good argument: - possibly change his alignment (to CN?) - let the situation roleplay itself out. (I doubt if the gradual alignment change shows a great skill in roleplaying.... it's seems it's all he can do) I will discuss this further in our group. I appreciate it.
Xarian 11-17-04, 12:12 PM	The sorceror sure sounds chaotic more than anything else.
TommyBlack 11-17-04, 03:14 PM	Don't forget, the sorcerer had another option "for good measure"... he could've opted to do nonlethal damage and taken a -4 with the branch. It would've reduced the banite's hp without having a chance of killing him.
Evil Weevil 11-17-04, 09:23 PM	So let me see, he killed the bad guy so thats bad, hes been doing bad things, hmmm, not good, but bad. Seems like he should have been CN awhile ago, but he should be CN only. Not evil b/c it wasn't like he killed him after he begged for his life. He didn't say sorry, big deal he doesn't have to, thats an irrelevent issue. I say CN at most. Just my 2 cents :D .
JimRuh 11-17-04, 11:37 PM	Solve it with in game consequences. Say that soldier has a family. maybe a small child maybe an older one. when the body is discovered...well now they have to fave the music. either a kid that has no father and will run the streets, or better yet a antagonist, that will go in search of the group and try to kill them, or ruin their reputation for that child knows the truth about this "godd" group of adventurers. Sure the banite was evil. Sure the paladine had every right according to his ethos to kill the banite. Sure the Sorc was in according to his alignment Snick or snack the evil oppressing army.....But that doesn't mean that their aren't consequences to it. I'd make the show of force double because the guards were killed and not just tied up. The best way to deal with in game actions...are in game cnsequences. remember other characters might not agree with him, say the cleric...who's to say that cleric has to heal that other character until he atones to what the other character things is aceptable.
strontium 11-18-04, 02:10 AM	If i were in your situation, and given the players history and your accepted policy of xp penalties, I would Penalise the player xp for poor roleplaying, then take him aside, give a warning of impending alignment breach and next time it happens he goes to cn,and loses a level (or whatever mechanics you use for that), and leave it at that. If he questions, explain the issue, point out that there are always options (anyone got any rope? at least ask!), indicate the ongoing lack of concern his character is showing, and maybe explain how it makes you feel (especially having to discuss it for 2 hours afterwards) If this is new territory, next game have a brief discussion on it with the players and enact a house rule for future occurrences.
Nicholas the Paladin 11-18-04, 03:32 AM	...., or better yet a antagonist, that will go in search of the group and try to kill them, or ruin their reputation for that child knows the truth about this "good" group of adventurers. nice idea. there were no witnesses, but maybe I can 'arrange' something. If i were in your situation, and given the players history and your accepted policy of xp penalties, I would Penalise the player xp for poor roleplaying, then take him aside, give a warning of impending alignment breach and next time it happens he goes to cn,and loses a level (or whatever mechanics you use for that), and leave it at that. I wouldn't put it that strict, but you gave me some ideas. If he questions, explain the issue, point out that there are always options (anyone got any rope? at least ask!), indicate the ongoing lack of concern his character is showing, and maybe explain how it makes you feel (especially having to discuss it for 2 hours afterwards)exactly If this is new territory, next game have a brief discussion on it with the players and enact a house rule for future occurrences. I think this is indeed a good moment to set up a houserule; to emphasize my 'concerns' about the situation and put it in a clear framework so he knows what's waiting for him if he continues to act like this. (this is relevant for all players ofcourse) Most of all, I want to discuss this in the group.....so we all are behind it and it emphasizes again the mess (or maybe he just likes it) he's in if he continues like this. I understand the Nazi-example that was given and I accept that there's always going to be situations where we will be discussing the grey-areas in ethics. But at one point a DM has to make a descision (and you guys helped a lot). I have to admit, there's more to it than just this particular situation. This player has many times shown disregard for the logics of alignment and makes fun of the passions of other characters. He doesn't seem to take hints so I'd like to be a 'little' bit more clear this time.
danielinthewolvesden 11-18-04, 04:51 AM	NO EXPERIENCE POINT PENALTY EVER As the DM the most - absolute MOST - you should do is change his alignment - shift it towards evil. Not by a lot, but just a little. A callous disregard for life (he's only a Banite) is evil. But that's it. Let the situation roleplay itself out. The paladin should not be freaking out or trying to hack the Sorc to death. Maybe just a stern lecture on killing a helpless opponent. Either way - the DM should stay clear of the argument, and NO XP PENALTY. Absolutely right. NO XPS penalties- EVER!!! The DMG warns very very strongly about doing this. (Yes, you can reduce bonus xps of course!). A Banite is dedicated to Evi, and he has made a consious choice to do so. When he wakes up, he will continue with his acts of Evil- rape, torture, murder, human sacrifice. Thus, it is indeed a CHAOTIC Good act to off him, if you get the chance. (Note the Caps on Chaotic.) The PC is sliding toward CN, I'll admit. Now a Paladin has to be Honorable towards his foes. Not so a CG Sorc. An Exalted PC would have to try and Redeem him- but I doubt of the Sorc is Exalted. Nor do I think he is playing out of Alignment. A CG PC wants to do what gains the greatest for Good- and to heck with the rules, regulations and honour! Exactly what he did. Even doing CdG on such an Evil foe wouldn't be Evil. It is quite Chaotic, of course, and not honourable at all, at all. I expect the Pally to be displeased. I agree I don't like the wording there "he's only a banite"- but if he meant by that that the foe was irredeemably soaked in and had turned to EVIL of his own choice and volition- then yes, he has a point. Not that he is "only" a Banite- since he is still a human life- but all they are doing is preventing more Evil by executing him on the spot. Note that a LG Paladin or Cleric of Tyr (one of the the most LAWFUL Gods out there)- would have likely quickly and painlessly executed the Banite also. It's right there in Faiths and Pantheons" pg 80 "Clerics of Tyr bring Law to lawless lands, often serving as Judge, Jury and Executioner." Note that any lands under Bane would certainly be considered "Lawless" by Tyr, and "exectution" includes- by it's very definition- killing a "helpless opponent". Thus, if Clerics of Tyr not only can- but are expected to- kill helpless opponents (assuming they are guilty and Evil of course!) - then killing helpless opponents is not nessesarily an Evil or even a Chaotic act. It's right there in print. Now- that's according to the Gods of Faerun. Not Modern Earth moralities. Let's keep that out of any such discussions, please. :banghead:
lorddark17 11-18-04, 08:57 AM	If I were to penalize someone here, it would be the LG Paladin and the LG Cleric for not wanting to kill the soldier... I don't know for you, but killing this soldier of bane was the best thing to do for morality. If he didn't killed it, the poor drunk soldier would be tied up in a forest, alone, and would surely have died after some days due to the lack of food and water or died because of wild animal that would have eaten him. Franctly, for me the sorcerer was the one that acted the most like a good alignment, the others would just have letted the soldier die slowly with pain, like they would torture him. And if D&D is that black and white, the soldier was evil so he should be killed.
Nicholas the Paladin 11-18-04, 11:32 AM	In one way I can see what you mean. In the other I think it's complete Bollocks I'm sure you didn't mean it that strict, but this kind of black and white D&D-play took us years to get out of the system......and I'm not wanting to take it back. The 'what if' questions do not apply to this situation. In hindsight saying that it's more ethic to right away kill, in stead of letting someone rot in the bushes is not relevant. By over-analysing you can justify many unethical actions. It's all about the descision you make at thát very moment. I dare to say that I know that the Sorceror did not kill that Banite out of compassion ("O, poor guy...if we will put him in the bushes, forget all about him, he will surely die a unpleasant death..."), but because he acted rash, uncaring and 'practical' ("yeahhh, let's club the drunk evil bastard!") Sorry, but that's not CG at all. (BTW: we only give XP penalties at the end of a session, when everybody receives XP. We give a base XP with a plus for good roleplaying and minus for bad roleplaying. This usually means that when someone receives a penalty it is substracted from his bonus. I got the feeling this wasn't clear to you)
CycloneRanger 11-18-04, 08:38 PM	I notice that Bane is the god of "Strife, Hatred, Tyranny, and Fear." A chaotic good character fights for freedom, although not necessarily with honor. Killing a soldier of the Black Lord, god of tyranny, would seem to me to be distinctly chaotic good. In fact, had I been playing the sorcerer, I would have burst into the tavern and killed every Banite I could identify, unless there was a very, very good reason not to. Even if you disagree, there is no reason for you to immediately make the character evil, or even neutral. It takes a long string of evil acts, along with warnings from the DM, in order to change your alignment. Alternatively, one titanically evil act could be substituted, but I think we all agree that didn't happen here.
FriendoftheDork 11-18-04, 08:38 PM	I think we can agree that Banites, on the whole, can be reasonably equated with the die hards of a certain radical fringe party that preached the superiority of certain races over others that took power in a certain Western Eurpoean country in the early to middle 20th century. Now, assuming you were a soldier for the US, France, England, Russia, etc. during that period of time, and one of these die hard soldiers carrying weapons and wearing obvious symbols of that regime, happened to walk up to take a leak in the bushes near where you were hiding, you wouldn't have hesitated to *blow his head clean off* instead of knocking him out. Sorry for the tone of this post but I'm tired of folks saying Lawful Good, or any Good for that matter, isn't justified in whacking off the obviously evil or co-conspirators of evil. If you're a soldier fighting another army you HAVE to kill your enemy sometimes, or be killed yourself. In your example the allied soldier has to quickly incapacitate an enemy, and that often means killing. If, however, said soldier was down and helpless, you should take him captive. Executing prisoners is against the Geneva Code, and IMO wrong. It doesen't matter if he was Whermacht, SS, Banite or whatever, killing surrendering or helpless foes is bad. Someone mentioned that it was better to kill someone than leave them helpless in the wild, but chances are that he would be found, or would find a way to unbind himself, or just walk home with his hands tied. Killing him is not an act of mercy.
danielinthewolvesden 11-18-04, 09:49 PM	If, however, said soldier was down and helpless, you should take him captive. Executing prisoners is against the Geneva Code, and IMO wrong. It doesen't matter if he was Whermacht, SS, Banite or whatever, killing surrendering or helpless foes is bad. Not so at all. Note the Nuremburg trials, where quite a few surrendered Nazi 'soldiers" were found guilty and executed. Note also that what the Nazis (and also the followers of Tojo) did was - to a large extent- legal under their own laws. Legally, the Trials of Nuremburg had no standing - but those men had commited "crimes against Humanity"- and thus could be executed- even tho what they did was "Just following orders". Note that in Faerun- Adventurers can be & are expected to be "judge jury and executioner" in the lands beyond the Pale. Thus, I'd expect the Paladin to say something like "Since there is no Law here, I- acting in the name of my God and of all Good peoples- find you guilty of terrible crimes and sentance you to death on the spot. May the gods have mercy on your soul". But I'd expect the CG Sorc to just go ahead and execute the Evil minion without any such ceremony.
Lord_Gema 11-18-04, 11:22 PM	The sorcerer did what the paly should have the paly should get a XP loss also if the sorcerer does.I'll just knock this evil guy out and leave him,now you have a very angry Banite that some poor person is gonna have to deal with later.Banite gets free beats and kills a peasant with a homemade tree limb club for clothes gets just enough exp for 2nd lvl now he is stronger and the world gains a driven follower of Bane who burns down a small town years later killing many innocents.BURN,BURN know the power of BANE!!! Thanks PALY
PhaedrusXY 11-19-04, 07:33 AM	Okay, I get your point(s). I understand the bad feeling some of you seem to have about XP-penalties. Why I brought it up, is because we are playing for some years now and XP-penalties have been (but not many) part of our D&D'ing. Our reasoning: when we give XP-bonusses for good roleplaying, I hate that just as much. I played with a group that did that, and it drove me nuts every week when we "voted" on it. I liked them all and the game itself, other than that. But it usually came down to nothing but blatant favoritism and a popularity contest, in my opinion. I don't watch Survivor or any of those stupid TV shows based on this crap. I don't want to deal with any of this kind of stuff in my recreation time, because god knows there is enough of it in everyday real life already.
FriendoftheDork 11-20-04, 03:28 PM	Not so at all. Note the Nuremburg trials, where quite a few surrendered Nazi 'soldiers" were found guilty and executed. Note also that what the Nazis (and also the followers of Tojo) did was - to a large extent- legal under their own laws. Legally, the Trials of Nuremburg had no standing - but those men had commited "crimes against Humanity"- and thus could be executed- even tho what they did was "Just following orders". Note that in Faerun- Adventurers can be & are expected to be "judge jury and executioner" in the lands beyond the Pale. Thus, I'd expect the Paladin to say something like "Since there is no Law here, I- acting in the name of my God and of all Good peoples- find you guilty of terrible crimes and sentance you to death on the spot. May the gods have mercy on your soul". But I'd expect the CG Sorc to just go ahead and execute the Evil minion without any such ceremony. There's a difference between executing a man after a trial and killing him in cold blood when he's helpless. The ones convicted at Nürnberg had a chance to speak for themselves and even had lawers. And despite the fact that this was a trial by the victor over the loser, the ones responsible took great measures to make the trial as fair as possible, so that even today most people think the trials legitimate, even in Germany. Also, it was mainly Hitler's henchmen and war criminals that were convicted, most normal soldiers and even SS was eventually released. If the PCs are outside the boundaries of civilization, they could probably do what they want, but it doesen't make it right to execute helpess people for no reason but sate their own bloodthirst. Even if the victim was a Banite. Killing people should be the last resort, in self defense, the defense of others or to prevent the incurable evil to do further mischief. Now, if this was in the Zhentil Keep area, and the Banite was someone of power, or at least a cleric, executing him might have been right. But this was no execution, it was bloody murder that the others in the group objected to.
Nicholas the Paladin 11-21-04, 06:25 AM	I hate that just as much. I played with a group that did that, and it drove me nuts every week when we "voted" on it. I liked them all and the game itself, other than that. But it usually came down to nothing but blatant favoritism and a popularity contest, in my opinion. I don't watch Survivor or any of those stupid TV shows based on this crap. I don't want to deal with any of this kind of stuff in my recreation time, because god knows there is enough of it in everyday real life already. I am sorry that you have had these experiences. The longer I stay on these boards, the happier I am with my coplayers. We've been playing together for about 12 years and we use a system that works for us. I am not saying others should do the same. This thread has been very usefull for our group. (and has brought up some interesting topics from real life: I agree with FriendoftheDork) Thanks for all the input, I will leave this discussion.
FriendoftheDork 11-21-04, 08:19 AM	I This thread has been very usefull for our group. (and has brought up some interesting topics from real life: I agree with FriendoftheDork) Thanks for all the input, I will leave this discussion. :) finally someone that does.
Mikal 11-22-04, 12:27 PM	We've been warning him plenty over the last 3 years at least. We emphasize on roleplaying more and more. I fear that his behaviour will give trouble fo the group. This PC doesn't take hints, so I want to be a bit clearer this time. Umm.. how is he not rping? It's obvious his character is sliding away from CG, and moving towards CN. Or in other words, rather then forcing him to stay an alignment he isn't ACTING AS, and taking away XP, do what IS within your perogative, and shift his alignment to CN. 'He's just a Banite, the world is better off without him.' is definatly closer to CN then CG, although it would be CN with good tendancies. Remember, while the player can officially change their alignment, the DM can say the PC doesn't follow that alignment any more if their actions show they aren't following that alignment. (tho why a paladin would be mad at CN i don't understand. IT's not like a paladin can detect chaotic neutral. in fact the paladin wouldnt even know In Character). But never apply XP-penalties because someone acts a certain way. That's the dumbest thing a DM can do besides railroad their pcs.