So I wrote a lengthy and detailed character history, and now I am Myan the Redeemed, Chaotic-Good Half-elven Crusader of Corellon Lorathian. My quest is to follow wherever my deity leads, ridding the world of tyrants and those who would enslave others.
Here's the Dilemma:
We were staying inside an inn in Scardale(which at this point in time is rather slummy and run by varying nefarious factions) pausing from our quest to aid this Wizard by uncovering information about his daughter's disappearance.
Then we're attacked by assassins hired by one of the factions we'd managed to annoy. The wizard cast a stray scorching ray and missed his target, causing the inn to catch fire and chaos to ensue. Long story short; we killed/chased off all of the assailants and managed to capture one.
Now, torturing is almost always evil, so I wouldn't let the barbarian in the party have his way, but the wizard did have a charm spell and we managed to get some very useful information out of the fellow. However, when we were done with him, the other members of the party wanted to tie him up and leave him for someone to find him, but the barbarian and I wanted to kill him swiftly so he won't come back for payback.
The party objects, and even after some discussion the DM agreed not to shift my alignment, but I really just want to stay in character. The assassin admitted to accepting money to kill us, admitted to worshiping mask(chaotic-evil deity), and admitted to having killed plenty of innocents before. The party argued that killing an unarmed prisoner is evil, whereas I argued it was chaotic under the definition in my PHB.
From the PHB:
Chaotic Good, "Rebel" - A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which although good, May not agree with that of society. Soverliss, a ranger who waylays the evil baron's tax collectors, is chaotic good.
I really wanted to play a paladin, but didn't want to be a nanny to the rest of my party(I also wanted something melee oriented), so I set out to look for an alternative and found the Crusader class from the Tome of Battle. Bingo!
So I wrote a lengthy and detailed character history, and now I am Myan the Redeemed, Chaotic-Good Half-elven Crusader of Corellon Lorathian. My quest is to follow wherever my deity leads, ridding the world of tyrants and those who would enslave others.
Here's the Dilemma:
We were staying inside an inn in Scardale(which at this point in time is rather slummy and run by varying nefarious factions) pausing from our quest to aid this Wizard by uncovering information about his daughter's disappearance.
Then we're attacked by assassins hired by one of the factions we'd managed to annoy. The wizard cast a stray scorching ray and missed his target, causing the inn to catch fire and chaos to ensue. Long story short; we killed/chased off all of the assailants and managed to capture one.
Now, torturing is almost always evil, so I wouldn't let the barbarian in the party have his way, but the wizard did have a charm spell and we managed to get some very useful information out of the fellow. However, when we were done with him, the other members of the party wanted to tie him up and leave him for someone to find him, but the barbarian and I wanted to kill him swiftly so he won't come back for payback.
The party objects, and even after some discussion the DM agreed not to shift my alignment, but I really just want to stay in character. The assassin admitted to accepting money to kill us, admitted to worshiping mask(chaotic-evil deity), and admitted to having killed plenty of innocents before. The party argued that killing an unarmed prisoner is evil, whereas I argued it was chaotic under the definition in my PHB.
From the PHB:
It can even be argued for Lawful. As Execution are government killings. As long as you have the right to kill him while he is your prisoner: than it is lawful.
If you cannot allow that: untie him, throw him a dagger, intimidate him to pick it up, and than slay him. He is no longer unarmed :D
Very Lawful (loopholes and lawful go together).
Note, however, that a single action, no matter how severe, should never result in an alignment change.
Secondly, note that an alignment change is not a big deal unless you're dealing with Prestige Class requirements or classes with alignment restrictions. If your crusader slips to Neutral, he slips to neutral. That doesn't mean you're not playing your character.
So, if I don't have the right to kill him, but he's clearly evil, I can execute him without "proper" evidence? That seems like it would fall under "chaotic good"
It all depends on how your DM works things.
As per RAW and Core, if a person registers evil, they are EVIL not evil. In DnD, you don't get "Evil" by spitting on sidewalks or use harsh words. In DnD one is evil because they kill innocents with malice, forethought or plain just don't care.
A group of punks who attack an old man, beat him badly, take his money and food and let him go are not evil, yet. If they learn that the old man never recovered from his wounds, died of hunger/exposure because he didn't have anything to eat or money to shelter himself are verging on evil. If they go out and do it again, even if they let the person get away but they know full well what is most likely to occur are Evil.
Now a person who spooks a horse that gallops down a narrow city street and runs over an old lady is not evil. That is an accident. Then again anyone who spooks horses to see what mayhem ensues and that does include death of innocents IS evil.
In DnD Evil is placed on an individual by the Cosmos. The Universe the DnD world is in declares one Evil or Good. So if your character is allowed to smite, dispatch or outright kill Evil they can do so.
Note this may not be allowed by the "law" of the land. Again, "Cosmic Law" generally overrides the puny laws of mortals. A LG Paladin who kills Evil in an evil land is most likely breaking many "laws" in the land. However to a Paladin, the "laws" of an evil land mean very little to their LG ethos.
Killing defenseless/helpless target = murder. Murder = Evil.
Not always. Killing an evil sorcerer on the verge of becoming a Evil Lich is not evil. A Paladin who enters the Temple of Horrendous doom and kills the evil priests while they are asleep is not committing murder.
Yes he is killing them when they can't fight, that's good tactics. Or do you think that waking them up, giving them a chance to escape then come en masse to the Paladin and their comrades a good idea?
Killing an innocent person is murder. Killing a prisoner who is known to be evil and was on a mission of evil is not an evil act. It can be a good act.
Not always. Killing an evil sorcerer on the verge of becoming a Evil Lich is not evil. A Paladin who enters the Temple of Horrendous doom and kills the evil priests while they are asleep is not committing murder.
Yes, yes he is.
Yes he is killing them when they can't fight, that's good tactics. Or do you think that waking them up, giving them a chance to escape then come en masse to the Paladin and their comrades a good idea?
Or, of course, he could simply slip past them.
Killing an innocent person is murder. Killing a prisoner who is known to be evil and was on a mission of evil is not an evil act. It can be a good act.
Killing a defenseless target = Murder. Murder=Evil.
Yes he is killing them when they can't fight, that's good tactics. Or do you think that waking them up, giving them a chance to escape then come en masse to the Paladin and their comrades a good idea?
You're mistaking good ideas for being "good"... It's a good idea, yes... it's not a good act. Evil deeds can be good tactics.
On topic, would it be possible to turn the assassin in? Any local jail/militia that can handle him?
In this Forgotten Realms setting, the city of Scardale where we picked up this assassin is almost completely given over to local slumlords and gangs, and the next city is two days away. There is one small section where the old guards and noblemen have taken refuge, and there might be a jail or something there, but there are two problems:
There's about three miles of hostile territory that we'd have to escort our prisoner through.
and
The guards there might be too afraid to take him, lest they risk the wrath of the assassin's guild.
If we leave him unattended, he WILL escape and get word to his friends, since he's well trained.
Edit** not to mention the question of evidence. I'm not sure confession magical compulsion is legitimate proof of guilt.
Example
A home that has been occupied for several generations has been broken into, the families (including women and children) that lived there all slain, their possesions looted, their religious symbols defiled.
If its an Orc Lair, its considered to be an act of good, because the Orcs obviously were evil. It doesn't matter if this was a reformed tribe that was trying to live peacefully or not.
If its a Human Lair, its considered to be an act of evil, because the Humans were obviously good. If this happens in a city environment, it doesn't matter if the family was worshippers of Nerull or not (well, ok, sometimes it does).
So wait... you're concerned about your alignment, but not because your Chaotic character (who is, indeed, concerned with freedom according to your post) allowed your party to rip away the free will of another sentient being?
Nice troll.
I really wanted to play a paladin, but didn't want to be a nanny to the rest of my party
So, why not play a Paladin and then... not be a nanny to the rest of your party? The Paladin's Code only tells him what he has to do. The only thing it says about his buddies is that they can't be evil. They can lie, cheat, and steal all they want as long as they do it for the right reasons and don't ask the Pally for help.
Killing defenseless/helpless target = murder.
I disagree with this. Someone that's been reduced to negative HP is "helpless". Someone under the effects of Hold person is "helpless". A prisoner secured to a guillotine could be considered "helpless". Killing those people isn't necessarily Evil.
In this case, it was an unrepentant and evil assassin who had confessed to multiple premeditated murders in the past and who had just been caught trying to murder the PCs. Killing him removes a force of Evil from the world and, according to the D&D alignment system, could be considered Good. Furthermore, since he hadn't had a proper trial, executing him could also be considered Chaotic. I think the Crusader, in this case, is operating solidly within his alignment.
(Note that I'm not talking about the real world here; that's a can of worms I don't feel like opening. I'm talking about D&D, where Good and Evil are objectively measurable forces.)
Hand him over to the Lord of Scardale for Judgement, and walk off.
Unless your party is empowered to dispense justice, it's not your call.
Otherwise you could claim the population of the Inn was evil, and slay them all.
If on the way to the Lord / Lady's keep the guys escapes, he does.
But killing him, just so "He can't escape" is expedient, "end justifies the means" type stuff.
I wouldn't rule alignment change for one act, but to me it would be a CE act.
C because none of your party is empowered to dispense justice by sword.
E because he's a prisoner with no weapons.
More or less.
Not always. Killing an evil sorcerer on the verge of becoming a Evil Lich is not evil. A Paladin who enters the Temple of Horrendous doom and kills the evil priests while they are asleep is not committing murder.
Yes, yes he is.
That the Paladin is killing the Sorcerer is true. However while you put the act into murder, which I define as killing for financial gain, fun or malice, I do not.
Yes he is killing them when they can't fight, that's good tactics. Or do you think that waking them up, giving them a chance to escape then come en masse to the Paladin and their comrades a good idea?
Or, of course, he could simply slip past them.
Perhaps but Paladins are not known for their skill points to put into stealth. Then there's that pesky problem of perhaps facing them all when someone mistakenly wakes someone up. Not a good idea in any world to be surrounded. There are times when a stealth approach is needed but leaving agents of evil, ala evil priests when you're out to destroy their temple is not a good idea. Those that escape are off to start their own little reign of terror.
Killing an innocent person is murder. Killing a prisoner who is known to be evil and was on a mission of evil is not an evil act. It can be a good act.
Killing a defenseless target = Murder. Murder=Evil.
My definition is from the Core and the PHB.
Where are you getting your definitions from?
DnD is not RL. DnD is a place where Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are real powers in the universe.
By your definition a 1st level Orc wild with bloodlust after coming out of a dwarven nursery and putting all the dwarven kids to death slowly and for fun charging a 19th level LG Dwarf Paladin/Defender it would be murder for the Dwarf to kill the orc.
Why? The Orc for all intents and purposes is helpless and his AC 15 is no defense vs the battle tested Dwarf.
Generally:
Good/Evil -> What the character does.
Law/Chaos -> How the character does it.
So killing the prisoner only becomes a chaotic + whatever good/evil alignment the DM assigns) act when you kill him in a chaotic way like for example giving him a 5 minute headstart and then hunt him down..(Of course you must do that in an area where the prisoner can't harm any innocents in his escape).
The real deal is it's not up to you guys.
Actually, in most DnD worlds, there is no INTERPOL. There are precious few treaties about jurisdiction. In many worlds, the law of a keep, city and even a kingdom is only as far as they can reasonably enforce their laws.
Hand him over to the Lord of Scardale for Judgement, and walk off.
Only if they know that the Lord of Scardale is a legitimate authority, if they are a Paladin.
Unless your party is empowered to dispense justice, it's not your call.
Actually, parties in DnD do that ALL the time.
Otherwise you could claim the population of the Inn was evil, and slay them all.
Oh they could but if the people in the Inn are not evil, then they (the party) would be. Not to mention outlaws in the area. That is if the local law even cares. In most early societies, the law was not their to protect the citizenry but to ensure the status quo.
If on the way to the Lord / Lady's keep the guys escapes, he does.
But killing him, just so "He can't escape" is expedient, "end justifies the means" type stuff.
But allowing an evil assassin to escape and ply their trade again is ok though? As Nietzsche stated, "All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Letting an evil assassin escape when you could have taken care of it yourself falls in that catagory.
I wouldn't rule alignment change for one act, but to me it would be a CE act.
Not in DnD. Killing an evil person who was caught in an evil act even after they were captured is not an evil act. In the world of DnD, dispatching an evil opponent to their eternal "rewards" can be a very Lawful and Good thing.
C because none of your party is empowered to dispense justice by sword.
In a land where the authority is legit and honorable, you'd have a point.
E because he's a prisoner with no weapons.
Is a monk without weapons defenseless? How about a Druid or Mage? Is a Sorcerer? I know a Mind Flayer. They almost never carry weapons.
In a world where their are beings that can make your brain go "pop" with a thought, where magic can bring forth evil denziens from places best left alone, there is no such thing as a weapon being needed to be a real threat to life and limb of anyone.
More or less.
Actually, there is a lot more.
Killing a prisoner has nothing to do with law and chaos, expecpt when you promised to let him live.
Generally:
Good/Evil -> What the character does.
Law/Chaos -> How the character does it.
Tag Derren. Wie geht's?
Correct. What I fear is that many people go by what they think it should be rather than what the rules say.
So killing the prisoner only becomes a chaotic + whatever good/evil alignment the DM assigns)
One nit pick here. Killing a prisoner is only chaotic when you have no authority to do so. A Cleric of St. Cuthbert will always feel they have "divine authority" to kill an evil being.
act when you kill him in a chaotic way like for example giving him a 5 minute headstart and then hunt him down..(Of course you must do that in an area where the prisoner can't harm any innocents in his escape).
That almost sounds like killing for sport.
You're mistaking good ideas for being "good"... It's a good idea, yes... it's not a good act. Evil deeds can be good tactics.
No. In a world like DnD (I am not saying this about RL) where evil and good are real, dispatching evil from the world is a good thing.
I solves the tied up/helpless problem.
It rids evil from the world (a good act).
It is in self defense (loosely) so allowed by most laws.
Wait: What is wrong my suggestion: If you cannot allow that: untie him, throw him a dagger, intimidate him to pick it up, and than slay him. He is no longer unarmed.
I solves the tied up/helpless problem.
It rids evil from the world (a good act).
It is in self defense (loosely) so allowed by most laws.
Nothing, if the bad guy plays along. What would you say if the bad guy throws the dagger down or refuses to pick it up? What if they then assume a prone position?
If a group gave me a dagger to fight someone in heavy armor when I haven't any cause they don't want to "murder me", damn if I'm going to give them a way out.
I was a neutral good bard. I was travelling with a paladin and a Lawful Neutral Monk.
We captured a druid that was killing our tenants, ruining their farms, and that attacked us. We tied her, kept watch, and began to take her back to the nearest city (we were the "lords" of the local castle, but not nobles and didn't feel we had the authority of a court). En route the druid shapeshifted and escaped.
Months later she came back with a great war hero, broken in heart and mind, that she dominated. She used him to slay an embassador and his escort - only one survived, barely, to implore us for help. We went out to investigate, and tried to subdue the warrior without harming him, but the manacles set him off. The druid came out of hiding to attack us as he went berserk, and the monk grappled and squeezed her into unconciousness at -1 Hp and stable as the paladin and I barely survived the attacks of the enraged barbarian before being forced to kill him.
So, we're left with a helpless female druid (being female in game and IRL, I didn't think her being female had any bearing, but it seemed to for the male players and DM) who has caused the death of unknown number of people throughout the area, but has also just caused about 3 dozen deaths on this day...and she's lying helpless in front of us.
We knew we couldn't keep her prisoner. We knew she'd repeat her evil, as she'd already repeated it and was completely unrepentant.
The paladin was told if he killed her, he'd fall. The monk also wouldn't kill her while she was helpless. I'd been hoping to go the Words of Creation route with my bard, and was informed in no uncertain terms that killing her because she was unconcious would prevent that for my character forever.
So...what would you do?
I coup de graced her. Letting her escape to destory more innocent lives would, in my opinion, be evil. Refusing to stop her simply because it interfered with my own "absolute purity" is selfish and absolutely evil in my opinion.
So...it was an "alignment trap" due to the fact she was at negative hit points but stable, female, and because of the attitude of my DM.
I don't think it's a good act. But it was the least evil action I could find in the situation.
I had a somewhat similar situation.
(snip)
Personally, I think your DM had it wrong. The idea of not killing females is from a time and place when women, specifically noblewomen, were objects. They were used to make alliances, produce more noble male heirs or be eye candy, women were almost never trained in combat. As there is no magic in this world they were not mages. IRL, women were almost never a threat and were in fact the "prize". Your DM used RL chivalry in a place that tries to allow anyone of any race, gender or species to be a horrid as they want.
Personally, if I played the Paladin I'd have killed the Druid as she laid there and told the DM he sucks as a DM and leave the game.
Another thing, if you are "lords" of some area, you have the right to mete out justice. The Paladin's DE on the Druid would've showed how evil she was.
OBTW, I agree with what you did. To bad your DM believed, I'm sorry to say this but it fits the best, that LG is synominious with Lawful Stoopid.
Personally, I think your DM had it wrong. The idea of not killing females is from a time and place when women, specifically noblewomen, were objects.
Personally, if I played the Paladin I'd have killed the Druid as she laid there and told the DM he sucks as a DM and leave the game.
Another thing, if you are "lords" of some area, you have the right to mete out justice. The Paladin's DE on the Druid would've showed how evil she was.
OBTW, I agree with what you did. To bad your DM believed, I'm sorry to say this but it fits the best, that LG is synominious with Lawful Stoopid.
Yeah, the whole female thing I didn't get - and it's the only time it really came up like that. Orcs surely wouldn't have hesitated to smash my halfling bard just because she was female.
We were lords in that we held the castle and lands for the king, but as all of the pcs (there was a party NPC wizard who was a citizen of Breland) were foreigners with other obligations, we weren't really lords - and thus were already aware we couldn't mete out the king's justice.
I'm glad the DM didn't throw this at us and not tell us the consequences of our actions before we took them, and he didn't set this up to be an alignment dilemma in the first place - he couldn't know we'd stabilize instead of outright kill her. But yeah, that particular ruling has always upset me.
As a DM, I wouldn't make a paladin fall over this - and I would only revoke exalted status if it was obvious from roleplay that the action was done out of anger, revenge or bloodlust rather than "This is the closest to good I can do in this situation", or it broke a previous vow.
It'd be different if we had a way to restrain her. Some antimagic field that prevented shapeshifting or manacles that had tht wild shaping item attached that makes the item shapeshift with the druid, keeping her chained.
I suppose I could have awakened her with low hp (I was the healer) and THEN killed her. How is that better than executing her while she's unconcious. In my mind, that also is cruel and more evil - waking her just to force to be aware she's about to die.
*shrug*
I want alignment to have real in game consequences, but I don't like when DM fiat or game mechanics force an action that will get your character killed, force them to allow great evil to happen, or lose their ability to fight said evils effectively.
(snip)
As a DM, I wouldn't make a paladin fall over this - and I would only revoke exalted status if it was obvious from roleplay that the action was done out of anger, revenge or bloodlust rather than "This is the closest to good I can do in this situation", or it broke a previous vow.
This needs repeating as it gets to the heart of the matter. What you brought up here is how a DM should rule when a Paladin or other Good/honorable character kills, the reason and turmoil behind the killing.
If I was the DM and the Paladin player was not wrestling with or just glossing over the ramifications of their actions, that's not good for their alignment. If they take their sweet time killing the person, then their alignment will have some serious issues to deal with then.
It'd be different if we had a way to restrain her.
Ever noticed the lack of anti-magical restraining items in the Core books? I think that speaks volumes what the writers were thinking when they wrote the alignment rules.
I suppose I could have awakened her with low hp (I was the healer) and THEN killed her. How is that better than executing her while she's unconcious. In my mind, that also is cruel and more evil - waking her just to force to be aware she's about to die.
I agree that is cruel and unusual and not a bit evil. Waking someone up to kill them and let them know is far worse than being killed in your sleep or while unconscious.
*shrug*
I want alignment to have real in game consequences, but I don't like when DM fiat or game mechanics force an action that will get your character killed, force them to allow great evil to happen, or lose their ability to fight said evils effectively.
I agree. I don't agree with DMs who put their own morality as alignment without giving the players a heads up.
I change my mind on leaving the game and calling the DM a poor DM. I would have argued my point and still done it, risking the DM's ire but knowing I did the right thing.
Ever noticed the lack of anti-magical restraining items in the Core books? I think that speaks volumes what the writers were thinking when they wrote the alignment rules.I agree that is cruel and unusual and not a bit evil. Waking someone up to kill them and let them know is far worse than being killed in your sleep or while unconscious
There Iron Bands of Bilarro works (Page 261 DMG) if she didn't prepare Still spells. Wild Shape/Natural spell wouldn't help. It works in large or smaller (unless she wild shapes to Huge) so it would continue to affect her.
It doesn't antimagic, but you can't cast spells while helpless (and held up like that) without silent.
Unless she has ranks in Escape artist or can make DC 30 Strength check.
There Iron Bands of Bilarro works (Page 261 DMG) if she didn't prepare Still spells. Wild Shape/Natural spell wouldn't help. It works in large or smaller (unless she wild shapes to Huge) so it would continue to affect her.
It doesn't antimagic, but you can't cast spells while helpless (and held up like that) without silent.
Unless she has ranks in Escape artist or can make DC 30 Strength check.
I never saw those in the DMG in AD&D nor 2nd Edition DnD.
Still it is one item, which needs a 13th level Cleric to make and they cost 26k.
They also sound rare which does make for a lack of them. Personally, I've never seen one as a player nor introduced one in my game as a DM.
I never saw those in the DMG in AD&D nor 2nd Edition DnD.
Still it is one item, which needs a 13th level Cleric to make and they cost 26k.
They also sound rare which does make for a lack of them. Personally, I've never seen one as a player nor introduced one in my game as a DM.
I think it is the name. It doesn't jump out and lure you into reading it. I've never noticed it till this year.
Killing a helpless person=evil(arguably in this case, see below)
Killing an evil person=good
killing a helpless evil person=neutral(maybe a bit chaotic too, but since you ARE chaotic that shouldn't be a problem)
Personally I don't think it's a problem so long as he attacked you. For someone overly worried about honor yeah, but he's already declared himself your enemy physically, killing him is a very reasonable response, at least for people as inherently violent as your average adventurer.:D
Wait: What is wrong my suggestion: If you cannot allow that: untie him, throw him a dagger, intimidate him to pick it up, and than slay him. He is no longer unarmed.
I solves the tied up/helpless problem.
It rids evil from the world (a good act).
It is in self defense (loosely) so allowed by most laws.
If the Intimidate fails, he could run away. Possibly using magic. Or he could attack you without picking up the dagger. Possibly using magic. And remember that if he gets away, the Assassins' Guild knows you're stronger than the last squad they sent after you, and they'll have at least a partial report on your capabilities.
So, why not play a Paladin and then... not be a nanny to the rest of your party? The Paladin's Code only tells him what he has to do. The only thing it says about his buddies is that they can't be evil. They can lie, cheat, and steal all they want as long as they do it for the right reasons and don't ask the Pally for help.
With the type of backstory I wanted for my character, I couldn't rationalize a paladin hanging out with a chaotic party, so I picked a chaotic crusader(which fits since elves lean towards chaos). Plus, when things take a group effort, its hard to not get sucked in.
For instance: your party Is being paid by a powerful Wizard to sneak into a keep to retrieve a rare book on golem crafting, but you have no proof the book belongs to the wizard or that the current owners of the book have done anything wrong... until you go in and verify. Unless you hurt anyone or take anything, the act is merely chaotic; also, sneaking in might be the only way to find out what's really going on inside.
Who wants to stay in the inn for a few days while your party runs around breaking the rules to get the job done?
I disagree with this. Someone that's been reduced to negative HP is "helpless". Someone under the effects of Hold person is "helpless". A prisoner secured to a guillotine could be considered "helpless". Killing those people isn't necessarily Evil.
In this case, it was an unrepentant and evil assassin who had confessed to multiple premeditated murders in the past and who had just been caught trying to murder the PCs. Killing him removes a force of Evil from the world and, according to the D&D alignment system, could be considered Good. Furthermore, since he hadn't had a proper trial, executing him could also be considered Chaotic. I think the Crusader, in this case, is operating solidly within his alignment.
(Note that I'm not talking about the real world here; that's a can of worms I don't feel like opening. I'm talking about D&D, where Good and Evil are objectively measurable forces.)
I agree, this is what I was looking for. :D Thanks!
"You can't kill helpless people."
I said. "Hm. OK. I won't kill him."
Every time he woke up, I promptly punched him out again. It was whack a mole all the way back to town.
I think that kinda situation is just dumb.
::shrug::
Hence why I'm really hesitant about playing paladins.
ah well. I just keep that stuff in mind when I'm DMing - and to my best to talk it out beforehand whether I'm a DM or player.
The OP's situation was different. In real life, had a group of people done this, it would be murder. This is D&D, however, and what they did was normal. Evil isn't an abstract concept in D&D. It actually exists. They killed an evil person who tried to kill them. Distasteful? Yup. Evil? Nope. You cannot place real world values into a D&D setting. Things get waaaaay too complicated really fast. Not to say it can't be done, of course.
I couldn't rationalize a paladin hanging out with a chaotic party
Next time you're looking at the SRD, you may want to check out the Paladin of Freedom, it's more or less exactly what you want.
Regardless, the Crusader is probably a better choice for the same basic flavor but with much better mechanics/balanced amount of Power
You're a Crusader, dude. You are a champion of freedom and goodness. Assassins steal the ultimate freedom from their victims through their evil deeds. Execution is very much within a CG alignment.
Now, if you're just killing him because your character feels that he doesn't want to risk further reprisal, then you're probably performing an evil act. Killing someone because you want to feel safer is selfish. But, there is a difference between what you as a player feel and what your character feels. If you think that your character should off the assassin, you should figure out why your character should do it. There are plenty of reasons why a chaotic good crusader would take the sword to an assassin who's tied up. Pick one and carry on with the campaign.
"I, (your name here), Crusader of (your deity here), have seen your soul, heard your pleas, and weighed your life. I have judged your guilty of great evil and sentence you to death. Do you have any last words before I carry out this judgment?"
You're a Crusader, dude. You are a champion of freedom and goodness. Assassins steal the ultimate freedom from their victims through their evil deeds. Execution is very much within a CG alignment.
Now, if you're just killing him because your character feels that he doesn't want to risk further reprisal, then you're probably performing an evil act. Killing someone because you want to feel safer is selfish. But, there is a difference between what you as a player feel and what your character feels. If you think that your character should off the assassin, you should figure out why your character should do it. There are plenty of reasons why a chaotic good crusader would take the sword to an assassin who's tied up. Pick one and carry on with the campaign.
Out of all the replies this thread has received, yours catches it all in a nutshell. Thank you!
Out of all the replies this thread has received, yours catches it all in a nutshell. Thank you!
You bet. I'm glad I could help out a bit.
So if an orc kills an orc, does he become good?
Alignment shoulsn't exist in a vaccum.
If the Orc woke up and never existed before. He than kills a evil Orc: Yes, that is a good act. Now, how does ailgnment work:
Is there a scale?
-20 Super Vile -10 Vile -5 Evil 0 Neutral 5 Good 10 Exalted 20 super Exalted
Paladins are usually 6-8. They aren't exalted or just minimum good, but they are better than neutral.
So it would take 5 good acts for a born just today Orc to become good.
Killing a Orc that is harming another is a good act. But just slaughtering them for fun: that leans toward evil.
Killing a evil creature in defense is neutral.
So if an orc kills an orc, does he become good?
Completely dependent on the reason the are killing the other orc.
If the orc kills another orc to protect someone:
1: A family member or their child: Neutral
2: Someone they met and the other orc wants to rob and kill: Good
3: Their crime boss so that the orc can gain an advancement in the group: Evil
That is why the demons and devils, who slaughter each other on site, don't become good. They slaughter for personal gain.
Your adversary is an evil assassin. Why worry about the ethics of killing him simply because he's helpless or because he helped you be revealing information under interrogartion? Details like evidence and mandate for execution just aren't going to be foremost in most adventurers' minds.
Just call it rough justice and let it go.
Alignment threads - gotta love em.
Cheers, --- Wheldrake
Alignment shoulsn't exist in a vaccum.
If the Orc woke up and never existed before. He than kills a evil Orc: Yes, that is a good act. Now, how does ailgnment work:
Is there a scale?
-20 Super Vile -10 Vile -5 Evil 0 Neutral 5 Good 10 Exalted 20 super Exalted
Paladins are usually 6-8. They aren't exalted or just minimum good, but they are better than neutral.
So it would take 5 good acts for a born just today Orc to become good.
Killing a Orc that is harming another is a good act. But just slaughtering them for fun: that leans toward evil.
Killing a evil creature in defense is neutral.
A Paladin? Are we talking about the same Paladins here? With all the twists and turns and restrictions of their code, I'd put them more between 8 and 15.
The problem with acting like that, is you are treading a fine line between CG and CN.
…so long as he attacked you.
This is the key right here.