Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 taylors005 May 15, 2008 21:15:25	I started a Lawful Good Nezumi Ninja i personally dont plan on dealing any killing blows to my foes but how do i justify allowing my fellow adventurers to kill?
#2 salla May 15, 2008 21:34:50	If your character won't kill, he should not be in the adventuring profession. Lawful Good does not mean you won't kill. It means you'll only kill for a good reason (such as self-defense and the defense of others and innocents), and you won't cheat or take unfair advantage of your opponents.
#3 navar100 May 15, 2008 21:42:32	Killing is not evil not chaotic.
#4 Fireclave May 15, 2008 21:46:44	A strict "no killing" rule usually doesn't work in a typical D&D adventuring party. Even if your whole party agreed to not killing your foes, it's very dangerous (read: suicidal) to leave enemies alive behind you as you are advancing enemies ahead of you. But here's a couple of ideas: You could just make "no killing" a solely personal ethos. You don't kill, perhaps because of a promise to someone you respected (or blood-oath, or dying wish, ect) or perhaps because the honor code of your fighting style demands it, but you don't really care whether or not your friends kill. You no killing policy pertains only to certain groups or kinds of enemies, which would leave you free to use full force against other types of creatures. Perhaps you don't kill humanoids, or intelligent creatures, or "civilized" creatures. Convince your party to do the same as well. The whole "no killing" thing will go over much smoother if the party is prepared to deal with the possible complications and consequences. Merciful weapons and the Subdual Substitution feat make being a boyscout much easier, and investing manacles and ranks in Use Rope for taking in the occasional prisoner would also be useful. Edit: Forgot an obvious one. Invest ranks in the social skills, especially diplomacy and bluff. You don't have to kill if you can convince your enemies not to fight. Lawful Good does not mean you won't kill. It means you'll only kill for a good reason (such as self-defense and the defense of others and innocents), and you won't cheat or take unfair advantage of your opponents. +1
#5 taylors005 May 15, 2008 22:05:04	A strict "no killing" rule usually doesn't work in a typical D&D adventuring party. Even if your whole party agreed to not killing your foes, it's very dangerous (read: suicidal) to leave enemies alive behind you as you are advancing enemies ahead of you. But here's a couple of ideas: You could just make "no killing" a solely personal ethos. You don't kill, perhaps because of a promise to someone you respected (or blood-oath, or dying wish, ect) or perhaps because the honor code of your fighting style demands it, but you don't really care whether or not your friends kill. You no killing policy pertains only to certain groups or kinds of enemies, which would leave you free to use full force against other types of creatures. Perhaps you don't kill humanoids, or intelligent creatures, or "civilized" creatures. Convince your party to do the same as well. The whole "no killing" thing will go over much smoother if the party is prepared to deal with the possible complications and consequences. Merciful weapons and the Subdual Substitution feat make being a boyscout much easier, and investing manacles and ranks in Use Rope for taking in the occasional prisoner would also be useful. i know killing doesnt violate the lawful good alignment. but it does violate my characters philosophy (in the bold). i'm just not sure how a lawful good character would justify a fellow adventurer delivering the final blow to a helpless and unconscious villain.
#6 entropy_judge May 15, 2008 23:27:32	It depends on the philosophy. I can see how a person who believes that killing will stain their soul will abstain from killing another, but will also not prevent others from killing if provoked. From your post, you aren't pacifistic, so fighting is not abhorrent, merely killing - and unless we know the specific reason, it only affects *you*. So you may be saddened by your compatriots' belief that slaying an enemy is necessary, but if you participate in combat, you can not truly argue for them to avoid it.
#7 Fireclave May 15, 2008 23:32:08	i know killing doesnt violate the lawful good alignment. but it does violate my characters philosophy (in the bold). i'm just not sure how a lawful good character would justify a fellow adventurer delivering the final blow to a helpless and unconscious villain. It would probably help us if you explained, in detail, your character's philosophy. Specifically, what is his philosophy and why does it hold it? Without knowing that, it's nigh impossible to give a suggestion that works with his specific ethos.
#8 taylors005 May 16, 2008 0:00:45	i think im just having issues with my character rendering a foe helpless and then being ok with a member of the party finishing off the now helpless enemy
#9 Fireclave May 16, 2008 0:38:26	i think im just having issues with my character rendering a foe helpless and then being ok with a member of the party finishing off the now helpless enemy Why? No, seriously. Why? Elaborate. Details. You've already told us this much already. What exactly is it about killing that bothers your character? Because, if this is the full extent of your character's reasoning, all I can say is go play some football and man up. And you don't really want me to say that, right? :P
#10 taylors005 May 16, 2008 1:53:17	Why? No, seriously. Why? Elaborate. Details. You've already told us this much already. What exactly is it about killing that bothers your character? Because, if this is the full extent of your character's reasoning, all I can say is go play some football and man up. And you don't really want me to say that, right? :P i guess in the example i keep trying to use i have already rendered the enemy unconscious in a fair battle now still in the heat of battle that foe is just lying there unable to do anything (maybe twitching and convulsing). anyways, he is clearly no longer being a threat. and then i permit a fellow adventurer to come up and just kill the helpless villain i dont think that is an LG thing to do that what im really having issues with im not having issues if that party member slays (completely dead) his own rival in combat as for this characters philosophy it was formed by the monastery he was trained at. the ninjas swore to a code of conduct similar to the code of bushido in UA, the knights code of conduct in the PHB2, and his clan was to only kill the most vile and unredeemable people.
#11 navar100 May 16, 2008 3:48:34	But it's ok for them to be burned alive by a Fireball? (i.e. Fireball damage took them to <0 hit points) How about the fighter stabbing them through the heart? The rogue skewering intestines? The druid's animal friend tearing them apart with its teeth? What you're describing is really the stereotypical prisoner dilemma. There is no dilemma. The enemy wants to kill you. Just because he's being Held doesn't change that. Once the Hold Person wears off, he's back to trying to kill you. However, given at the moment he can't fight back, it would be appropriate for a quick and as painless a death as possible. Suffocation is out, but the rogue with a dagger stab for his coup de'grace is fine. It's Lawful Good, not Lawful Nice or otherwise Awful Stupid. If you want a prisoner to interrogate, that's fine. You can even try some redemption, and as long as the DM is not a jerk, you'll legitimately convert a few as opposed to it never working or the prisoner is just pretending. The mooks are not necessarily fanatic. They'll accept they were beaten and appreciate you took them prisoner instead of killing them. It's not always a bad idea to let them go after interrogation if they were cooperative. They won't necessarily seek revenge or otherwise betray the trust you gave them. You should be prudent of whom you can trust, but really, all it takes is for the DM to screw you over once with a freed prisoner betrayal for the party to want to kill every prisoner from then on, so it's best for the DM not to be a jerk about it.
#12 Fireclave May 16, 2008 7:08:41	and then i permit a fellow adventurer to come up and just kill the helpless villain i dont think that is an LG thing to do While that certainly isn't the stereotypical LG approach, it is very possible to finish a foe you rendered helpless and still be LG, especially if said foe was just trying to kill you less than 6 seconds ago. D&D alignments allow for a bit of wiggle room, and if you can justify your actions under a particular alignment, you're good to go. Just as an example, a character who fights his foes honorably and finishes them so that they cannot cause more harm to innocents in the future can very well be a lawful good person. But I digress. as for this characters philosophy it was formed by the monastery he was trained at. the ninjas swore to a code of conduct similar to the code of bushido in UA, the knights code of conduct in the PHB2, and his clan was to only kill the most vile and unredeemable people. Ah, there we go. That's what I was looking for, and this is also the source of your problems. As far as I can see, your issue is not whether or not allowing your allies to kill a helpless foe is a LG act. In fact, your issue is not even one of alignment (as I stated already that the called for action could very well be justified as LG). I believe the true conflict here is that of character motivations. Your character's background requires him to show mercy to all but the vilest opponents, which goes counter to the standard adventuring status quo, where, as I mentioned before, leaving enemies behind you is a recipe for regret. The ethical dilemma of whether or not your character should stand by and allow his allies to kill foes that he has rendered helpless is already resolved by your character's background. His code calls for him to "only kill the most vile and unredeemable people." If your character allows his allies to coup de grace any foe, he definitely will be violating his ethical code. Will he stop being LG for doing so? Not necessarily, though it would be a step toward neutrality (how big will depend on who you ask). Though if you're worried your character may risk switching alignments, your character probably has other aspects of his personality that are lawful. And if not, your character could redefine his code or find a new one, so long as he stays consistent with that code once he adopts it. Either way, your character has a choice to make. Either he bends or breaks his code and allows his allies to finish off foes, or he convinces his allies to get on the no-kill bandwagon. As a player, however, I might consider tweaking your character's code into something a bit more forgiving in terms of when it is appropriate to kill (though I can understand the roleplaying reasons for not wanting too). Also note that your code is much stricter than either the PH2 Knight's or the UA's Bushido Code. The former just discourages (though not prevents) you from dealing damage to a helpless foe. Knights can still kill non-helpless foe without any repercussions. And the UA Bushido Code places no limits or modifiers on violence. In this respect, your code is even stricter than the Paladin's Code of Conduct. :two-cents:
#13 taylors005 May 16, 2008 13:52:53	navar100 But it's ok for them to be burned alive by a Fireball? (i.e. Fireball damage took them to <0 hit points) How about the fighter stabbing them through the heart? The rogue skewering intestines? The druid's animal friend tearing them apart with its teeth? if that is how they chose to deal with the advisory thats fine, the foe was killed in combat using necessary force. but when combat is over and no one is still engaged in combat, then to use or permit use of lethal force on a comatose villain. i dont believe a Lawful good character could do that. What you're describing is really the stereotypical prisoner dilemma. There is no dilemma. The enemy wants to kill you. Just because he's being Held doesn't change that. Once the Hold Person wears off, he's back to trying to kill you. However, given at the moment he can't fight back, it would be appropriate for a quick and as painless a death as possible. Suffocation is out, but the rogue with a dagger stab for his coup de'grace is fine. no im not, if you chose to bring the prisoner along, you knew the risk involved with bringing the enemy with you. when the prisoner tries to kills you again its fair game to kill to him. unless you need him for something. It's Lawful Good, not Lawful Nice or otherwise Awful Stupid. your the kind of paladin that declares holy war on a neutral good tribe of orcs and smites the babies. simply because orcs are evil. If you want a prisoner to interrogate, that's fine. You can even try some redemption, and as long as the DM is not a jerk, you'll legitimately convert a few as opposed to it never working or the prisoner is just pretending. The mooks are not necessarily fanatic. They'll accept they were beaten and appreciate you took them prisoner instead of killing them. It's not always a bad idea to let them go after interrogation if they were cooperative. They won't necessarily seek revenge or otherwise betray the trust you gave them. You should be prudent of whom you can trust, but really, all it takes is for the DM to screw you over once with a freed prisoner betrayal for the party to want to kill every prisoner from then on, so it's best for the DM not to be a jerk about it. i wont argue with this because your right.
#14 Fireclave May 16, 2008 15:29:37	your the kind of paladin that declares holy war on a neutral good tribe of orcs and smites the babies. simply because orcs are evil. Hold on. Navar makes a very good point and you are making a very hasty generalization here. Lawful Good does not mean you have to be merciful to downed foes, but at the same time being Lawful Serious-Business or Serious-Business Good does not mean that you are unable to recognize good from evil or exceptions from the norm, nor does it imply that you are closed-minded or unable to think outside of the box. The paladin type that you described here is called Lawful-Stupid, and it's these kinds of hasty generalizations of paladin conduct that contribute to the mountain of threads on the subject. Also, don't forget that your character exists in a world where people live by the sword and might, all too often, makes right. Often, you must meet violence must meet violence in order to just survive. It's nice that you are trying to take the high road, but remember that not everyone has such a luxury, and few give foes will give you like quarter, and many with the power and motive to do so will seek to take advantage of such kindness. personally that was my excuse for BBEG's. but i can't justify it to myself to use that logic on a minion with no name tag. Understandable. i dont think that will happen. if anything it will divide the party monkey hengeyokay shaman (alignment unknown) gnome wilder (alignment unknown) human favored soul of kord (something good) halfling barbarian (chaotic something) stone child monk (lawful good) and me a nezumi ninja/sohei (lawful good) I'm not seeing anything from your party's setup that would intrinsically predispose them to opposing a less violent approach. Alignment wise, the only alignments that wouldn't mesh well with such as idea would probably be NE and CE (even LE could choose not to kill helpless foes as a point of honor). when choosing my ninja's CoC it was to say im holier than you modeled after the vow of nonviolence feat and i asked myself WWB-MD? (what would bat-man do) Your character and Batman live in very different worlds. Bats lives in a world that, besides a subset of big-bads, is very stable, and he does his job amiss an established police, justice, penitentiary system that can handle and contain the bad guys he defeats (at least momentarily). Does your ninja have similar luxury, as might be the case in a highly urban setting (like Sharn)? If not, WWBMD may not always apply as is. Also, the holier-than-thou attitude is not the easiest one to get along with. If done poorly, your character can come across as very annoying, especially if your character requires his party to act less like them and more like him. This is another common theme in Paladin threads. mechanically my ninja has sacred vow, vow of poverty, sudued strike, sacred strike, and intuitive strike. I thought that exalted feats might have played a part in your character's background. I don't have the BoED, but from what I hear, exalted status is very demanding, requiring you to be good to a point that would embarrass paladins. BoED material is not the easiest to integrate into a standard game.
#15 taylors005 May 16, 2008 18:23:45	I thought that exalted feats might have played a part in your character's background. I don't have the BoED, but from what I hear, exalted status is very demanding, requiring you to be good to a point that would embarrass paladins. BoED material is not the easiest to integrate into a standard game. its that BoED material that really has me second guessing my everyday adventuring routine for this character so i'll apologize if im being stupid
#16 calronmoonflower May 16, 2008 21:42:56	Talk over your character concept with the rest of your group and the dungeon master. If the agree to go along then fine, if not you really shouldn't be making demands on your party that this would require.
#17 mock26 May 16, 2008 23:46:17	Simple. Your character is Enlightened. His fellow adventurers are Not Enlightened. You cannot change their ways. You cannot make them Enlightened. Only they can make themselves become Enlightened. Being Not Enlightened is not a bad thing as generally most people who are Not Enlightened are just ignorant of The Truth of Being. So, the Enlightened often mingle with the Not Enlightened and put up with those quirks (such as killing) that prevents them from being Enlightened. The Enlightened often deliberatly mingle with those who are Not Enlightened so that they can show them the error of their ways and guide them down a path that will allow them to make the necessary personal changes so that they may become Enlightened. Roleplaying this could be a lot of fun. Just don't become a full-time preacher. Play your character as you want, let the rest of the group play their characters. Then, periodically, when someone in the group kills a monster, let out a sigh and roll your eyes, or make a "tsk tsk tsk" type of sound, or after the battle casually mention that because of their killing they prevent themselves from becoming Enlightened. I think that one such comment/gesture every 90-120 minutes of play time is enough that it becomes a regular trait without it becoming tiresome.
#18 Nathreet May 17, 2008 0:05:10	Wield a sap. Bring along lots of rope. Make some connections with the local authorities. For later levels, see if you can get a bag of holding for the baddies, and don't forget to protect it against puncturing and let in some fresh air every few minutes.
#19 navar100 May 17, 2008 0:42:01	your the kind of paladin that declares holy war on a neutral good tribe of orcs and smites the babies. simply because orcs are evil. Uh, no. That's Awful Stupid. A Lawful Good paladin would see they are Neutral Good and leave them alone. i wont argue with this because your right. If only everyone would just accept this already ... :D
#20 dravda May 17, 2008 15:23:16	1) I think this was a line from BoVD: A good hero never wishes to harm his opponent's immortal soul. He simply dispatches them quickly, believing the afterlife to be punishment enough. You could consider the fact that the enemy is going off to get his just deserts. Killing him stops him from ever hurting anyone again (as has been said before) and gives him his rightful punishment. 2) If it's feasible, how about making some connections with the local authorities? Prestige class into Justiciar (CW) to get their sweet non-lethal combat bonuses, and then turn everyone you capture over to the authorities. Some good examples would be your church, the town guard, etc. This might be impossible on long dungeon delves, or expeditions far away from society. But it's still worth considering. -Count Dravda P.S. Dang...now I'm gonna have to make a Ninja Justiciar...
#21 thubby May 19, 2008 6:41:57	hire a lackey to stand outside the dungeon with a (large) prison cart and take prisoners you send out bound and gagged? take vow of peace and hope they fail the will save? give them a knife when they come to and have the fighter massacre them in a "fair" fight?
#22 revan54115110 May 19, 2008 13:59:59	things to note 1) it is ok to kill when you are LG 2) if you can get your hands on a copy of the d2o book Way of the Ninja you may find a good way to role play a ninja. (mostly by trying to convince every one that you are not)
#23 mooncalf May 19, 2008 15:48:43	The whole "Is it LG of me to allow my allies to kill a defeated foe" threw me. Your alignment is NEVER affected by what other people choose to do. If the rogue decides to slit the throat of a foe who was down, then it's a cause for disappointment for you, but not alignment changes. If you believe the group should spare your foes unless they're morally bankrupt, then tell that to them. Explain, in character, in the game, to the other party members, that you think this should be so. Maybe they will actually agree to it. Don't try to force them. Don't try to guilt trip them by claiming that their actions somehow makes you break your oath. They're players in the game, they're playing their characters. It's not up to you to decide what to do or how to do it. You don't play their characters, they do. I've gamed with some control freaks who seriously thought they had authority to tell me and my character what I could do and not do, and how to do it. It didn't end well. No one was happy. You can try to inspire them. See if the DM can't help you out a little. Use diplomacy to persuade a defeated and captured mook to surrender and stop fighting, and try to make him repent. Maybe you'll hear later that the outlaw you let go is now a guardsman, using his skills to protect people. Most players see monsters and opponents as some kind of one-dimensional fight-machines who just fight and fight until they're dead. Show them it's not like that. Once you've shown that your way is the right one, they might see things the way you do. If not, you have two in-character options: either have a change of heart, ditch the code; or leave the group. Why should you continue to associate with bloodthirsty murderers if they won't see the light?