Cloudgatherer
First Post
Couldn't the party simply turn them over to the local authorities? Let the local justice system dispense a sentence and that will be the end of it.
Can good characters let evil characters die?
Bronn Spellforger
First Post
Cloudgatherer said:
Yep.. that was an idea we came up with. Except we're deep underground, about 4 or 5 days from town.. and we'd have to go through some pretty nasty areas to get there.
but good though!
Tiefling
First Post
I'd rule that slitting their throats while they're unconcious is a chaotic act. If the character has reason to believe that they would do lots of evil if they were allowed to live, it would be chaotic good. If the character has reason to believe that they would do lots of good if they were allowed to live, it would be chaotic evil. Otherwise it's just straight chaotic.
An evil alignment only means the character is capible of evil, he doe not mean he has done anything evil. Then it comes down to actions, what have they done that makes them evil? What line will the players cross?
A DM needs to define exactly what evil is in their game. Canablism, murder in cold blood, terrorism, child prostitution, drug use, slavery, and so on...
It is also important for DM to set a 'view' of a country. This normally is expanionism with a manifest destiny, that comes across this race is evil because they are in our way and are savages.
A DM needs to define exactly what evil is in their game. Canablism, murder in cold blood, terrorism, child prostitution, drug use, slavery, and so on...
It is also important for DM to set a 'view' of a country. This normally is expanionism with a manifest destiny, that comes across this race is evil because they are in our way and are savages.
Infinite Monkey
First Post
All this is exactly the reason that I have defined (to a degree) what constitutes and evil act IMC, and created mechanical penalties for evil acts. Specifically, slaying others when there is some other means of defeating them is evil. I'm going to use something similar to the rokugan idea of taint to measure and penalise evil actions.
Generally the games I play have eliminated the use of alignment though we still use it to describe characters -- its an attribute like what weapon a fighter is most likely to use. Doesn't mean a whole lot and it doesn't mean the fighter will never pick up another weapon, learn to use other weapons, not try his luck with his Charisma attributes, or become a mage down the road. What it does mean is said fighter knows the sword, probably prefers to use it or will prefer it until he is eithe forced to do otherwise or is given a better alternative. Does this answer anything? I thought not.
The characters I have played would have dealt with the prisoners as they felt they must. Alignments may play a role in that decision but in the end wouldn't have meant a thing.
For example, a good aligned character who despises bugbears for some reason would have slit the creature's throat before a detection spell was even used. Possibly that hatred runs so deep that he would have killed those allied with the bugbear or even threatened the cleric attempting to heal the bugbear. Any other PC might have wrung his neck for wasting heal spells. Good doesn't mean open-minded.
Each player should figure out their characters enough so that they know whether they know their motivations for dealing with their foes and then the party should come to a consensus. Maybe the priest that healed them would be outvoted and would have to walk away from the group after the adventure. That kind of thing can be exasperating at times, but it can also be fun if the players remember its a game and they are finding out about each others characters as well as their own. And players should be willing to think of it thru their characters minds, not their own.
The characters I have played would have dealt with the prisoners as they felt they must. Alignments may play a role in that decision but in the end wouldn't have meant a thing.
For example, a good aligned character who despises bugbears for some reason would have slit the creature's throat before a detection spell was even used. Possibly that hatred runs so deep that he would have killed those allied with the bugbear or even threatened the cleric attempting to heal the bugbear. Any other PC might have wrung his neck for wasting heal spells. Good doesn't mean open-minded.
Each player should figure out their characters enough so that they know whether they know their motivations for dealing with their foes and then the party should come to a consensus. Maybe the priest that healed them would be outvoted and would have to walk away from the group after the adventure. That kind of thing can be exasperating at times, but it can also be fun if the players remember its a game and they are finding out about each others characters as well as their own. And players should be willing to think of it thru their characters minds, not their own.
LostSoul
Adventurer
In this situation, I think good characters could kill their captives if and only if they feared for thier lives. If they don't believe the captives present an active threat (not just "he's evil so he might kill me in eight years"), they don't really have the justification for ending lives - lives that they, as good characters, are sworn to protect.
Neutral characters could kill them all, no sweat. It is the pragmatic thing to do.
If the good characters did kill thier captives and there was no active threat, I don't think it would be enough to make them evil. Or neutral. It just isn't a very good act. You don't want to keep this kind of behaviour up.
Neutral characters could kill them all, no sweat. It is the pragmatic thing to do.
If the good characters did kill thier captives and there was no active threat, I don't think it would be enough to make them evil. Or neutral. It just isn't a very good act. You don't want to keep this kind of behaviour up.
Arkham
First Post
LostSoul said:
I'm sorry, but just because a character generally tries to do the
right thing and help people does _NOT_ mean that he is
"sworn to protect" anyone at all, let alone a bunch of thugs who
just tried to kill them. Being good does not necessitate protecting
anything. Being good certainly does not necessitate "swearing
oaths". Even if one of the characters were a paladin, then the
paladin would be justified in executing the foe for the good
of their cause, especially as they were 4-5 days away from the
nearest good city, and thus outside of any lawful jurisdiction.
LostSoul
Adventurer
Arkham said:
Yeah, bad choice of words. Of course "swearing" to something is a Lawful trait, not a good one.
"Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." By killing these thugs they are not making any kind of personal sacrifice to help these others. They are putting thier own safety above the lives of others.
I don't think it is a Good act, I think it's Neutral. I don't think it would change your alignment, but if you kept up this attitude then it might.
And I guess it all depends on the situation. If you're "saving the world" and you have to kill the guards so they don't raise the alarm, that's different. If you're raiding some ugly thing's underground home, that's something else.
reapersaurus
First Post
You DIDN'T just say that.Hand of Evil said:
That is so off from almost everything I have read on these boards.
I'm curious, have any of you guys read the myriad of alignment threads on these boards?
It's fine if you haven't, but we're treading on much-charted ground that can erupt quickly...
So.. Hand of Evil.
Because I have the capacity within me to kill someone who is attempting to attack me or my family, than I am EVIL?
I'll leave the question at that, with no more details, to see your response.
Similar Threads
